Perform (Acting) Substituted for Bluff?


Rules Questions


I posted this already but for some reason, it didn't show up, so if you see it twice ignore the first post.

One of my players asked me if the Acting skill could be used in place of Bluff because the two can be seen as trying to accomplish similar ends; to influence a listener's emotions or reactions.

What are your thoughts on this? I'm still trying to formulate mine.


Bard's/Skald's Versatile Performance, acquired with a 2 level dip or with VMC at 11th level, lets you do that. Therefore I would not allow it (totally ignoring the fact that acting and bluffing are very much different from eachother).


One of the things that's been bothering me about d20 systems for a while now is that the system itself basically says "No".

I've been playing various editions for 32 years now, and things that used to be a reasonable extrapolation when there was no rule have become outlawed because a new feat makes it possible, but says you can't do it without the feat.

RAW... PFS Legal... As a GM I'd add a penalty or roll twice and take the lower, but if the context makes sense I'd let it ride.

Example, a 2nd level fighter is surrounded and wants to make a whirlwind attack. Why not? Roll at -5 and you provoke attacks from all enemies who can reach you.

Remember, the rules are only a guide. The GM makes the game.


Right, I do agree with that sentiment. And I've been playing about as long as you, so I get what you are saying about the older editions and their lack of rules saying you can't do it without feats.

I'm leaning toward allowing it, to be honest. Just wanted to get some other folks' input on it.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Perform (Acting) Substituted for Bluff? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.