Acrobatic Performance for Swashbuckler (Battledancer) to Gain Panache

[Red Griffyn]

Can a APG author please identify whether the intent of the Acrobatic Performance skill feat is to allow a Swashbuckler (Battle Dancer) to gain panache and/or use the leading dance swashbuckler feat with their acrobatics skill? It appears to me as if the intention is to allow it and the feat wording leads to logic conflicts (says in place of or don't say performance check to perform and only perform). I don't care what the end result is, but if it doesn't let you gain panache and/or use the feat then the battle dancer will become much worse for it as they have to invest in a much less used skill (i.e., performance vs. intimidation, diplomacy, or deception).

[Salamileg]

I think it's pretty clear. Battledancer requires you to use a Performance check to Perform. Acrobatic Performer allows you to use Acrobatics to Perform. Acrobatic Performer changes the Perform action, not the requirements of the Battledancer.

Also, I don't think requiring Performance makes the Battledancer that much weaker, given how strong the Leading Dance feat is. Plus, you can Perform from any distance and can try over and over without penalty, an advantage the other styles don't have.

[pauljathome]

I agree that the wording is clear and the Battledancer can NOT use Acrobatic Performance to gain Panache.

It is less obvious to me that the wording matches the intent. It is quite a subtle point (several people, including me, misread it until it was pointed out) and if that was the intent it would have been nice to make it clearer.

[Red Griffyn]

The two interpretations are:

A = Acrobatics Check
B = Performance Check

Option 1:

A DOES NOT EQUAL B, but you can use A instead of B

Option 2:

A DOES EQUAL B and thus using A is the same as using B.

I think the wording is ambiguous and confuses RAW. I can see why people see it either way. But I'd be surprised if they added this feat to the APG with battle dancer and RAI isn't option 2. I could be wrong, but definitely changes whether I'd ever use the battle dancer.

[pauljathome]

At this point, if you're in a home game ask your GM. If in PFS, you pretty much have to build your character on the assumption Acrobatic Performer does NOT apply.

I also don't think it's a huge deal as long as you planned to max out Cha anyways. It's a difference of 1 at most levels. It does make the choice of prioritizing Performance or Acrobatics a bit harder.

Also makes the Acrobat archetype more attractive

[rainzax]

+1 Salameg

I would argue similar for Natural Medicine appropriating the Treat Wounds function of Medicine by the same logic, allowing an Expert in Nature to roll at a higher DC.

[Syra2305]

Red Griffyn wrote:

The two interpretations are:

A = Acrobatics Check
B = Performance Check

Option 1:

A DOES NOT EQUAL B, but you can use A instead of B

Option 2:

A DOES EQUAL B and thus using A is the same as using B.

I think the wording is ambiguous and confuses RAW. I can see why people see it either way. But I'd be surprised if they added this feat to the APG with battle dancer and RAI isn't option 2. I could be wrong, but definitely changes whether I'd ever use the battle dancer.

Please, is there by now a errata/clarification on this?

It would go a long way for a lot of people out there if it was officialy stated that you can use the feat for a battle dancers panache. Otherwise Imho the acrobatic performer feat would be really useless.

BTW. Great work so far by Red Griffyn to collect so many rule-questions! <3

[breithauptclan]

Syra2305 wrote:

Please, is there by now a errata/clarification on this?

Nothing yet.

My understanding is that there is a second printing of the APG that has gotten held up in shipping delays. The Errata is being held off on being published until the physical copies of the second printing are available too.

[AlastarOG]

Don't really understand the request for an errata?

It's pretty clear it doesn't work like that officially.

Ask your gm if you want them to homebrew it, but RAW it doesn't, that's it.

[Syra2305]

breithauptclan wrote:

Syra2305 wrote:

Please, is there by now a errata/clarification on this?

Nothing yet.

My understanding is that there is a second printing of the APG that has gotten held up in shipping delays. The Errata is being held off on being published until the physical copies of the second printing are available too.

Tyvm!