There's not really a hard answer for this; the Mage Hand one is really pushing what the spell can do (similar dexterous work like lockpicking requires an explicit subclass feature). Regarding "playing an instrument", that depends a bit on how you define "play" and your DM's interpretation. Technically you could still attempt to make a CHA roll without the benefit of your proficiency bonus, although it's also fair for the DM to simply say you will not be able to play an instrument radically different from one you have prof with well. Regarding magic items, just ask the DM to re-skin them to your instrument.
Musical Instrument. Several of the most common types of musical instruments are shown on the table as examples. If you have proficiency with a given musical instrument, you can add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to play music with the instrument. A bard can use a musical instrument as a spellcasting focus. Each type of musical instrument requires a separate proficiency.
You pick three instruments to be proficient in. However, at 2nd level you get the Jack of All Trades feature, which I think could make you arguably "half proficient" in other musical instruments. Not all musicians, but it's also not rare for people skilled and well trained in one instrument to be able to pick up and passably play other instruments. Ultimately it's probably a DM call, so as long as you're not a hindrance or annoyance with the character's musicality, I'd allow it; but talk to your DM. Maybe even allow them to swap instrument proficiencies at level ups or other narratively sensible places. Bard focuses on a new instrument and "falls out of practice" with the old proficiency.
I sometimes wonder if this means a Bard can use any musical instrument as a spell focus or needs a particular spell focus. RAW only speaks of "a" musical instrument, it doesn't say a specific one, so I'd arguably go for a broader tolerance, but I could see some DMs who like to police spell components and the like being more strict.
Well as written, using a musical instrument as a spell focus doesn't specify you need to play it. In fact, some instruments might feasibly interfere with spellcasting if you're trying to use them that way, such as casting Command while your mouth is busy playing the flute!
As for "can you play without being proficient" - Sure you can, just like you could in real life, but it likely wouldn't be very good. As with all ability checks, the result depends on what you're trying to accomplish and whether or not the DM calls for a roll (ideally, with a meaningful consequence for failure if they do.)
Unless there's a prerequisite, which you would probably only find on a magical musical instrument, regardless of class anybody can attempt to play any musical instrument. You just don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the roll. That's why the bard chooses which musical instruments to be proficient in.
Well as written, using a musical instrument as a spell focus doesn't specify you need to play it. In fact, some instruments might feasibly interfere with spellcasting if you're trying to use them that way, such as casting Command while your mouth is busy playing the flute!
To be honest, I've always counted the music playing as being the V. After all, you're causing vibrations which causes.magic, rather than the words themselves, so I think that's a viable (and IMO best) interpretation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well as written, using a musical instrument as a spell focus doesn't specify you need to play it. In fact, some instruments might feasibly interfere with spellcasting if you're trying to use them that way, such as casting Command while your mouth is busy playing the flute!
To be honest, I've always counted the music playing as being the V. After all, you're causing vibrations which causes.magic, rather than the words themselves, so I think that's a viable (and IMO best) interpretation.
Aesthetically it’s not an issue, but mechanically leaning too much into that can get players trying to use the music to hide their casting, particularly when they’re trying to do something like cast Charm Person on an important character. So I’m not sure I’d necessarily call it the “best” option, in terms of reconciling aesthetics with mechanics.
There are a couple of basic rules in the game being overlooked here. A spellcasting focus can only be used in place of material components, not verbal or somatic. There are no material components for Mage Hand or Command so there is no interaction between playing your instrument and casting those spells. As well, every character is able to attempt every skill whether or not they are proficient in 5e. If you are proficient, you are just better at it and more likely to succeed. A bard can play any instrument. In fact, any character can play any instrument.
There are a couple of basic rules in the game being overlooked here. A spellcasting focus can only be used in place of material components, not verbal or somatic. There are no material components for Mage Hand or Command so there is no interaction between playing your instrument and casting those spells. As well, every character is able to attempt every skill whether or not they are proficient in 5e. If you are proficient, you are just better at it and more likely to succeed. A bard can play any instrument. In fact, any character can play any instrument.
No, people are not necessarily free to make a roll on anything even if they don’t have a prof. If you don’t have Thieve’s Tools or Sleight of Hand, you should not be able to attempt to pick a lock. If you don’t have Arcana, you should not be able to precisely identify magic phenomena. And if you don’t have an instrument prof, you’re not going to be able to read a sheet of music for the instrument and hit the notes. Yes, any character can pick up an instrument and strum the chords or blow into it, but without at least prof in a similar instrument there’s no reason you should be able to give a decent performance on it.
Generally, anyone can play any instrument, but you'll only add your proficiency bonus to an ability checks you make to play music with a music instrument If you have proficiency with it.
But a DM can always determine that a specific task require proficiency to be attemped. For exemple, if a character want to try play a complex reknown violon piece, the DM could say it's not able to unless proficient with it.
There are a couple of basic rules in the game being overlooked here. A spellcasting focus can only be used in place of material components, not verbal or somatic. There are no material components for Mage Hand or Command so there is no interaction between playing your instrument and casting those spells. As well, every character is able to attempt every skill whether or not they are proficient in 5e. If you are proficient, you are just better at it and more likely to succeed. A bard can play any instrument. In fact, any character can play any instrument.
No, people are not necessarily free to make a roll on anything even if they don’t have a prof. If you don’t have Thieve’s Tools or Sleight of Hand, you should not be able to attempt to pick a lock. If you don’t have Arcana, you should not be able to precisely identify magic phenomena. And if you don’t have an instrument prof, you’re not going to be able to read a sheet of music for the instrument and hit the notes. Yes, any character can pick up an instrument and strum the chords or blow into it, but without at least prof in a similar instrument there’s no reason you should be able to give a decent performance on it.
RAW, that is not how the skill system works in 5e. To begin with, Sleight of Hand has no relevance to picking a lock; picking a lock is a straight dexterity check. Add to this that it is not stated anywhere that you must be proficient to attempt a skill. Furthermore, whether or not a character can do it is determined by a roll against the DC, nothing more. The limiting factor related to proficiency comes from the fact that you will not be able to achieve the highest DC's without it.
Obviously you can't play an instrument without an instrument to play but that doesn't mean you aren't skilled enough to play it, it means your hands are empty. Same with picking a lock without tools: anyone can do it but obviously you need tools to make the attempt. Neither of these have anything to do with proficiency.
As the discussion has been based around profs, I felt it would be implicit I was referring to them and redundant to keep saying prof. And no, it’s not an inalienable right to make a roll on anything you want; you ask the DM if you can make a roll, and they have the prerogative to say an activity or some knowledge is out of the scope of a character without a corresponding prof.
As the discussion has been based around profs, I felt it would be implicit I was referring to them and redundant to keep saying prof. And no, it’s not an inalienable right to make a roll on anything you want; you ask the DM if you can make a roll, and they have the prerogative to say an activity or some knowledge is out of the scope of a character without a corresponding prof.
I said nothing about any inalienable right. I said there is no RAW requirement for proficiency in order to attempt a skill in 5e. Of course you can only roll on checks that the DM says you can. Of course the DM can rule however they see fit. And of course you need an instrument to play one. Do you have any other exceedingly obvious and completely useless observations for us?
As the discussion has been based around profs, I felt it would be implicit I was referring to them and redundant to keep saying prof. And no, it’s not an inalienable right to make a roll on anything you want; you ask the DM if you can make a roll, and they have the prerogative to say an activity or some knowledge is out of the scope of a character without a corresponding prof.
I said nothing about any inalienable right. I said there is no RAW requirement for proficiency in order to attempt a skill in 5e. Of course you can only roll on checks that the DM says you can. Of course the DM can rule however they see fit. And of course you need an instrument to play one. Do you have any other exceedingly obvious and completely useless observations for us?
You are the one who specifically said that any player can attempt any skill check. That is factually incorrect, and so I pointed it out. So I suppose the observation that you at the very least are not making a consistent point is obvious, though I don’t know if it’s useless.
It depends; as has been said, a DM has discretion over what rolls can be attempted. If a Bard only has proficiency with wind instruments, then it's entirely reasonable for the DM to simply say that Bard cannot just sit down in front of say a piano and play a sheet of music well. Even if they allow the player to roll and see what happens if they want to try it anyways, they'd be perfectly justified in making a nat 20 just a "you don't completely embarrass yourself" scene. Jack of All Trades makes rolls they can attempt slightly more possible, but it's not carte blanche "the character can potentially do anything and everything if they roll high enough".
To be clear, this isn't an absolute wall; if a Bard had proficiency with say a banjo then I'd let them roll to play an acoustic guitar with a chance to play well; it's just a question of "do they have something on their character sheet that translates into the essential core knowledge/experience they'd need?"
There are a couple of basic rules in the game being overlooked here. A spellcasting focus can only be used in place of material components, not verbal or somatic. There are no material components for Mage Hand or Command so there is no interaction between playing your instrument and casting those spells.
As well, every character is able to attempt every skill whether or not they are proficient in 5e.
You can attempt, but that attempt is only accompanied by a roll (or automatic success) if the DM calls for such. I can say my character attempts to jump to the moon, but the DM is the one who decides if I get to roll for that, and what that roll means. Similarly, I can my character attempts Mozart's 40th all I like, but not being proficient, I'm probably not even going to get a roll.
There are a couple of basic rules in the game being overlooked here. A spellcasting focus can only be used in place of material components, not verbal or somatic. There are no material components for Mage Hand or Command so there is no interaction between playing your instrument and casting those spells.
As well, every character is able to attempt every skill whether or not they are proficient in 5e.
You can attempt, but that attempt is only accompanied by a roll (or automatic success) if the DM calls for such. I can say my character attempts to jump to the moon, but the DM is the one who decides if I get to roll for that, and what that roll means. Similarly, I can my character attempts Mozart's 40th all I like, but not being proficient, I'm probably not even going to get a roll.
Jumping to the moon is not analogous to attempting to play a musical instrument. There are actually plenty of people who pick up instruments and play them very well without any training. There are also actually plenty of people who play musical instruments without ever learning to read sheet music. There are no people ever in all of the entire history of humanity who have jumped to the moon. A ridiculous strawman does little to make your point.
In previous editions, it was specifically written in the rules that it was not even possible to attempt a skill check if you lacked proficiency in a particular skill. My only point is that it does not actually say that anywhere in 5e. Play however you like but I believe this was a conscious decision by the design team that should not be dismissed.
Generally, anyone can play any instrument, but you'll only add your proficiency bonus to an ability checks you make to play music with a music instrument If you have proficiency with it.
But a DM can always determine that a specific task require proficiency to be attemped. For exemple, if a character want to try play a complex reknown violon piece, the DM could say it's not able to unless proficient with it.
The DM can always determine that however why not just set the DC for the complex violin piece extremely high? Functionally, it is the same result if the DC is unattainable because the character is not proficient but it feels more like a yes, but rather than a hard no. It is better in spirit, more generous gamesmanship I think. YMMV
Can a bard play any instrument? Or only the one you pick as your proficient in when you create your bard?
Ive read that people can use mage hand to play multiple instruments at the same time,
So can you just play all instruments? Then why do you have to pick a instrument,
And i picked a flute, becouse of the weight. But can i get and play magic instruments later? There isnt a flute variant
There's not really a hard answer for this; the Mage Hand one is really pushing what the spell can do (similar dexterous work like lockpicking requires an explicit subclass feature). Regarding "playing an instrument", that depends a bit on how you define "play" and your DM's interpretation. Technically you could still attempt to make a CHA roll without the benefit of your proficiency bonus, although it's also fair for the DM to simply say you will not be able to play an instrument radically different from one you have prof with well. Regarding magic items, just ask the DM to re-skin them to your instrument.
So RAW
You pick three instruments to be proficient in. However, at 2nd level you get the Jack of All Trades feature, which I think could make you arguably "half proficient" in other musical instruments. Not all musicians, but it's also not rare for people skilled and well trained in one instrument to be able to pick up and passably play other instruments. Ultimately it's probably a DM call, so as long as you're not a hindrance or annoyance with the character's musicality, I'd allow it; but talk to your DM. Maybe even allow them to swap instrument proficiencies at level ups or other narratively sensible places. Bard focuses on a new instrument and "falls out of practice" with the old proficiency.
I sometimes wonder if this means a Bard can use any musical instrument as a spell focus or needs a particular spell focus. RAW only speaks of "a" musical instrument, it doesn't say a specific one, so I'd arguably go for a broader tolerance, but I could see some DMs who like to police spell components and the like being more strict.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Well as written, using a musical instrument as a spell focus doesn't specify you need to play it. In fact, some instruments might feasibly interfere with spellcasting if you're trying to use them that way, such as casting Command while your mouth is busy playing the flute!
As for "can you play without being proficient" - Sure you can, just like you could in real life, but it likely wouldn't be very good. As with all ability checks, the result depends on what you're trying to accomplish and whether or not the DM calls for a roll (ideally, with a meaningful consequence for failure if they do.)
Unless there's a prerequisite, which you would probably only find on a magical musical instrument, regardless of class anybody can attempt to play any musical instrument. You just don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the roll. That's why the bard chooses which musical instruments to be proficient in.
To be honest, I've always counted the music playing as being the V. After all, you're causing vibrations which causes.magic, rather than the words themselves, so I think that's a viable (and IMO best) interpretation.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Aesthetically it’s not an issue, but mechanically leaning too much into that can get players trying to use the music to hide their casting, particularly when they’re trying to do something like cast Charm Person on an important character. So I’m not sure I’d necessarily call it the “best” option, in terms of reconciling aesthetics with mechanics.
There are a couple of basic rules in the game being overlooked here. A spellcasting focus can only be used in place of material components, not verbal or somatic. There are no material components for Mage Hand or Command so there is no interaction between playing your instrument and casting those spells. As well, every character is able to attempt every skill whether or not they are proficient in 5e. If you are proficient, you are just better at it and more likely to succeed. A bard can play any instrument. In fact, any character can play any instrument.
No, people are not necessarily free to make a roll on anything even if they don’t have a prof. If you don’t have Thieve’s Tools or Sleight of Hand, you should not be able to attempt to pick a lock. If you don’t have Arcana, you should not be able to precisely identify magic phenomena. And if you don’t have an instrument prof, you’re not going to be able to read a sheet of music for the instrument and hit the notes. Yes, any character can pick up an instrument and strum the chords or blow into it, but without at least prof in a similar instrument there’s no reason you should be able to give a decent performance on it.
Generally, anyone can play any instrument, but you'll only add your proficiency bonus to an ability checks you make to play music with a music instrument If you have proficiency with it.
But a DM can always determine that a specific task require proficiency to be attemped. For exemple, if a character want to try play a complex reknown violon piece, the DM could say it's not able to unless proficient with it.
RAW, that is not how the skill system works in 5e. To begin with, Sleight of Hand has no relevance to picking a lock; picking a lock is a straight dexterity check. Add to this that it is not stated anywhere that you must be proficient to attempt a skill. Furthermore, whether or not a character can do it is determined by a roll against the DC, nothing more. The limiting factor related to proficiency comes from the fact that you will not be able to achieve the highest DC's without it.
Obviously you can't play an instrument without an instrument to play but that doesn't mean you aren't skilled enough to play it, it means your hands are empty. Same with picking a lock without tools: anyone can do it but obviously you need tools to make the attempt. Neither of these have anything to do with proficiency.
As the discussion has been based around profs, I felt it would be implicit I was referring to them and redundant to keep saying prof. And no, it’s not an inalienable right to make a roll on anything you want; you ask the DM if you can make a roll, and they have the prerogative to say an activity or some knowledge is out of the scope of a character without a corresponding prof.
I said nothing about any inalienable right. I said there is no RAW requirement for proficiency in order to attempt a skill in 5e. Of course you can only roll on checks that the DM says you can. Of course the DM can rule however they see fit. And of course you need an instrument to play one. Do you have any other exceedingly obvious and completely useless observations for us?
You are the one who specifically said that any player can attempt any skill check. That is factually incorrect, and so I pointed it out. So I suppose the observation that you at the very least are not making a consistent point is obvious, though I don’t know if it’s useless.
I think to the OP's point, the "non proficient" rolls are kinda moot with the Bard's Jack of All Trade feature, as I've already mentioned.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It depends; as has been said, a DM has discretion over what rolls can be attempted. If a Bard only has proficiency with wind instruments, then it's entirely reasonable for the DM to simply say that Bard cannot just sit down in front of say a piano and play a sheet of music well. Even if they allow the player to roll and see what happens if they want to try it anyways, they'd be perfectly justified in making a nat 20 just a "you don't completely embarrass yourself" scene. Jack of All Trades makes rolls they can attempt slightly more possible, but it's not carte blanche "the character can potentially do anything and everything if they roll high enough".
To be clear, this isn't an absolute wall; if a Bard had proficiency with say a banjo then I'd let them roll to play an acoustic guitar with a chance to play well; it's just a question of "do they have something on their character sheet that translates into the essential core knowledge/experience they'd need?"
Okay - Suggestion then.
You can attempt, but that attempt is only accompanied by a roll (or automatic success) if the DM calls for such. I can say my character attempts to jump to the moon, but the DM is the one who decides if I get to roll for that, and what that roll means. Similarly, I can my character attempts Mozart's 40th all I like, but not being proficient, I'm probably not even going to get a roll.
Bards can play any musical instrument they like. So can I. But you won't enjoy the music I make, no matter what musical instrument I play.
Bards need to have a musical instrument to cast spells - but they do not need to be proficient with it. It just has to be a spell focus for them.
Jumping to the moon is not analogous to attempting to play a musical instrument. There are actually plenty of people who pick up instruments and play them very well without any training. There are also actually plenty of people who play musical instruments without ever learning to read sheet music. There are no people ever in all of the entire history of humanity who have jumped to the moon. A ridiculous strawman does little to make your point.
In previous editions, it was specifically written in the rules that it was not even possible to attempt a skill check if you lacked proficiency in a particular skill. My only point is that it does not actually say that anywhere in 5e. Play however you like but I believe this was a conscious decision by the design team that should not be dismissed.
The DM can always determine that however why not just set the DC for the complex violin piece extremely high? Functionally, it is the same result if the DC is unattainable because the character is not proficient but it feels more like a yes, but rather than a hard no. It is better in spirit, more generous gamesmanship I think. YMMV