6
\$\begingroup\$

Swashbucklers with the Battledancer style can gain panache by:

You gain panache during an encounter when the result of your Performance check to Perform exceeds the Will DC of an observing foe, even if the foe isn't fascinated.

Can I replace Perform with Acrobatics in this case, if I have the Acrobatic Performer feat?


Why would I do that?

  • Swashbucklers have Dex as key ability, so Acrobatics can be higher than Perform
  • Tumble Through also uses Acrobatics, but it provokes Attacks of Opportunity
  • Battledancer's Perform is compared to Will DC, while Tumble Through needs to beat the Ref DC
\$\endgroup\$
8
\$\begingroup\$

Pretty clearly not.

The Battledancer style indicates clearly what it requires for panache. You have to use your Performance check to Perform. Acrobatic Performer allows you to use an Acrobatics check to Perform. That's great and all, but it's not the specific thing that triggers panache for Battledancer.

On the other hand, Acrobatics already offers you an always-works way to acquire panache, with Tumble Through. It also seems like the obvious skill for many of the "particularly daring action" attempts. Acrobatics is already well-supported as a way to acquire panache.

Even beyond that, from a game balance perspective, the Swashbuckler has an inherent need for dexterity. The importance of acrobatics is built in from the beginning. Gymnast adds a requirement to support a Strength-based skill. Battledancer, Braggart, Fencer, and Wit all add a requirement to support a charisma-based skill. Having a single low-level skill feat invalidate that off-stat requirement for this case seems a bit much.

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

Yeah, probably

As noted in the answer to your other question, the problem with that scenario is that you are not doing the Perform action.

Acrobatic Performer specifically states that you are doing the Perform action (even when using a different skill to do so). The phrasing "your Performance check to Perform" is oddly redundant, but I would judge that a special case altering the skill you can use for an Action is a more specific case than writing out the expected skill in association with the Action.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1 Specific beats general. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jason_c_o
    Aug 8 at 12:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.