Profession Barrister to feint in combat?


Rules Questions


Quick questions, which sounds kind of odd.

The Asmodean advocate has the following ability:

Devil in the Details (Ex)
"At 1st level, an Asmodean advocate learns to choose her words so carefully that even when she says something designed to deceive listeners, the words are phrased to be technically true. She can use her Profession (barrister) skill for Bluff and Diplomacy checks. This benefit also extends to her familiar. The Asmodean advocate gains an insight bonus equal to 1/2 her cleric level (minimum +1) on Linguistics checks related to forgeries and on all Profession (barrister) checks."

Meanwhile, Feint as described in the combat section:
"Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check."

So the first ability says, I can use the Profession barrister skill for bluff checks.

Feinting requires a bluff check.

So by extension, shouldn't this work?

Maybe flavor wise, an Asmodean cleric starts to berrate his opponent with legal jargon, and calling out obvious flaws in his opponents defense long enough to successfully feint him?

Silver Crusade

Yes, it seems pretty clear cut that that would work. It can be described as the Sith ability Dun Moch from Star Wars, using words to fluster the enemy in combat, a combo of using this to feint and intimidate to demoralize.


"Now then, good sir, you realize that striking an ordained member of the clergy carries severe penalties that may result in you"-SMACK!

*crushes opponents skull with his heavy mace*

I considered playing one of these, sounds like fun.


It appears to technically work.

As a GM, I would likely rule that based on the fluff text of the ability it only applies to the usage of bluff to lie to an enemy.

And by that extension I don't really like that feint is attached to bluff, but the system is what it is.


Claxon wrote:

It appears to technically work.

As a GM, I would likely rule that based on the fluff text of the ability it only applies to the usage of bluff to lie to an enemy.

And by that extension I don't really like that feint is attached to bluff, but the system is what it is.

You would houserule something that allows you to use one skill in place of two?

Yikes.

It isn't like this breaks the game.

The actual use of this could probably be roleplayed like my example above, perhaps even with the quoting of local statutes/regulations... boring stuff that people tune out and then-BAM! Some face-mace interaction.

To be fair, this archetype HAS to take Trickery domain, and loses their other domain.

It's not great.


Yes, it works as advertised. Given that feint isn't even a great option for a cleric it is a fun but not outrageous option.

Claxon wrote:

It appears to technically work.

As a GM, I would likely rule that based on the fluff text of the ability it only applies to the usage of bluff to lie to an enemy.

And by that extension I don't really like that feint is attached to bluff, but the system is what it is.

We like to call this the 'no fun allowed' approach where you restrict player options just because. 'rule of no cool' also works.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Fernn wrote:

Quick questions, which sounds kind of odd.

The Asmodean advocate has the following ability:

Devil in the Details (Ex)
"At 1st level, an Asmodean advocate learns to choose her words so carefully that even when she says something designed to deceive listeners, the words are phrased to be technically true. She can use her Profession (barrister) skill for Bluff and Diplomacy checks. This benefit also extends to her familiar. The Asmodean advocate gains an insight bonus equal to 1/2 her cleric level (minimum +1) on Linguistics checks related to forgeries and on all Profession (barrister) checks."

Meanwhile, Feint as described in the combat section:
"Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check."

So the first ability says, I can use the Profession barrister skill for bluff checks.

Feinting requires a bluff check.

So by extension, shouldn't this work?

Maybe flavor wise, an Asmodean cleric starts to berrate his opponent with legal jargon, and calling out obvious flaws in his opponents defense long enough to successfully feint him?

It should work. The ability is a mini Versitile Percormance (bard ability), so not a big deal. How it works is up to your imagination.


Claxon wrote:

It appears to technically work.

As a GM, I would likely rule that based on the fluff text of the ability it only applies to the usage of bluff to lie to an enemy.

And by that extension I don't really like that feint is attached to bluff, but the system is what it is.

I could see your point, as the wording in the description say's that

" an Asmodean advocate learns to choose her words so carefully that even when she says something designed to deceive listeners, the words are phrased to be technically true."

But I would humble ask you reconsider as in the same sentence it also says

"an Asmodean advocate learns to choose her words so carefully that even when she says something designed to deceive listeners, the words are phrased to be technically true."

while the definition of feinting is as follows:
"pretend to throw a (punch or blow) in order to deceive or distract an opponent."

I could see this as annoying if The viper that the asmodean cleric also gets is working in tandem to feint targets as well.

Bluff, after all is deceiving. Sure it is a bit odd that they have a social skill entwined with combat, but that is the most relevant procedure to feint.

I imagine an Asmodean cleric saying "I am going to pretend to hit you from the left, and hit you from the right" outloud.
Psyching out the enemy with such a forward announcement of the cleric's tactics that he compromises his guard.


alexd1976 wrote:

"Now then, good sir, you realize that striking an ordained member of the clergy carries severe penalties that may result in you"-SMACK!

*crushes opponents skull with his heavy mace*

I considered playing one of these, sounds like fun.

This is a hilarious example!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blakmane wrote:

Yes, it works as advertised. Given that feint isn't even a great option for a cleric it is a fun but not outrageous option.

Claxon wrote:

It appears to technically work.

As a GM, I would likely rule that based on the fluff text of the ability it only applies to the usage of bluff to lie to an enemy.

And by that extension I don't really like that feint is attached to bluff, but the system is what it is.

We like to call this the 'no fun allowed' approach where you restrict player options just because. 'rule of no cool' also works.

It's not a restriction of player options. The options are completely allowed, I just don't like the way the ability is written and feel the should have specified it's use for lying and not applicable to feint.

Also, insulting people is a really great way to convince them to change their mind. Great tactic.


Claxon wrote:
Blakmane wrote:

Yes, it works as advertised. Given that feint isn't even a great option for a cleric it is a fun but not outrageous option.

Claxon wrote:

It appears to technically work.

As a GM, I would likely rule that based on the fluff text of the ability it only applies to the usage of bluff to lie to an enemy.

And by that extension I don't really like that feint is attached to bluff, but the system is what it is.

We like to call this the 'no fun allowed' approach where you restrict player options just because. 'rule of no cool' also works.

It's not a restriction of player options. The options are completely allowed, I just don't like the way the ability is written and feel the should have specified it's use for lying and not applicable to feint.

Also, insulting people is a really great way to convince them to change their mind. Great tactic.

Given that this combo is vanishingly unlikely to come up in your game, It was less about the carrot and more about the dagger, to be perfectly honest. I have a pet peeve for spontaneous DM houserule nerfs, especially when the ability isn't even arguably too powerful.

Dark Archive

Claxon wrote:


It's not a restriction of player options. The options are completely allowed, I just don't like the way the ability is written and feel the should have specified it's use for lying and not applicable to feint.

Also, insulting people is a really great way to convince them to change their mind. Great tactic.

Interesting point of view and one that anyone is obviously free to rule for home games, would you also restrict Bards from feinting using Versatile Performance that allows them to substitute various skills for Bluff out of interest?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Profession Barrister to feint in combat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.