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.
Saying "there's IRL savants" is a rather weak argument for a game like D&D where those kind of things are defined (and limited) by features, and trying to play that card could honestly come across as a flag for MC Syndrome. And the DMG specifically says "By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage." I would say "I attempt to play an instrument when my character doesn't have a prof that's even close" qualifies as a "bad plan". Players are free to come up with plans, but the DM is free to say "they don't work" if there's no reason the character should have the knowledge to pull them off. That was clearly a conscious decision by the design team as well.
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.
Saying "there's IRL savants" is a rather weak argument for a game like D&D where those kind of things are defined (and limited) by features, and trying to play that card could honestly come across as a flag for MC Syndrome. And the DMG specifically says "By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage." I would say "I attempt to play an instrument when my character doesn't have a prof that's even close" qualifies as a "bad plan". Players are free to come up with plans, but the DM is free to say "they don't work" if there's no reason the character should have the knowledge to pull them off. That was clearly a conscious decision by the design team as well.
You are entitled to your opinion. It does not change what rules are actually written in this game. OP asked if you have to be proficient to play a musical instrument and the fact is that it does not say anywhere in the 5e rules that you do. Referring to the fact that a DM can rule any way they please on any matter at any time does not change that either. Answering a rules question with the DM can do what ever they want is as good as no answer at all.
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.
Saying "there's IRL savants" is a rather weak argument for a game like D&D where those kind of things are defined (and limited) by features, and trying to play that card could honestly come across as a flag for MC Syndrome. And the DMG specifically says "By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage." I would say "I attempt to play an instrument when my character doesn't have a prof that's even close" qualifies as a "bad plan". Players are free to come up with plans, but the DM is free to say "they don't work" if there's no reason the character should have the knowledge to pull them off. That was clearly a conscious decision by the design team as well.
You are entitled to your opinion. It does not change what rules are actually written in this game. OP asked if you have to be proficient to play a musical instrument and the fact is that it does not say anywhere in the 5e rules that you do. Referring to the fact that a DM can rule any way they please on any matter at any time does not change that either. Answering a rules question with the DM can do what ever they want is as good as no answer at all.
No, it's "this is not something you can control". That is a valid answer to "can I do this" questions. And the Air Bud argument is specious when discussing literally anything where it would be unreasonable to expect all foreseeable circumstances to be addressed, and clearly the RAI of having specific instrument proficiencies instead of just rolling them into Performance is to represent "this is an instrument you know how to play".
I can see giving a decent roll if the Bard has proficiency in a similar instrument. But playing a different class of instrument is not nearly the same. Stringed instruments is a completely different skill set to playing a wind instrument or horn.
If it's a similar instrument and the Bard had time to practice a bit I'd let them roll no penalty.
Anybody can make a Performance check but it's gonna sound awful. On second thought, I wouldn't let them roll. I would just tell them you make a lot of noise.
RAW, you can roll so far as I'm aware (happy to accept a specific quote from the rules otherwise), if you're proficient, you get the bonus. Otherwise, you don't. Just like any other skill.
I'd play it differently though.
You only get to roll if you're proficient in an instrument. People who have never learned an instrument just make annoying noises when they try.
If you're proficient in an instrument but not the instrument, you get a roll, but no proficiency bonus. After learning the piano,.I can get a tune out of almost any instrument like a guitar, just nowhere near the quality of the piano.
If you're proficient in the instrument, you get the proficiency bonus as well.
This is a situation where the lack of granularity in D&D causes issues. By making things a d20 + fixed ability score + PB (yes/no), you don't get the ability to account for many factors.
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.
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
A DM can, but setting up a DC opens the door for features or magic items that could auto-succeed the check as well as those that get high bonus to the check etc...while requiring proficiency to attempt the task would prevent any chance of success without it in similar fashion to proficiency with thieves' tools is often required for certain task such as to pick lock.
I see nothing wrong with a complete amateur picking up a music instrument they know nothing about (are not proficient with) and attempting to play it. It will sound horrible and fail to activate any magical ability and not impress anyone, but they should certainly get a DC to convince someone that they are proficient with the instrument.
The response should be "Hey, you totally suck and need to go into a cave and practice some more." But they would admit they have played the instrument and could believe they are proficient with it.
But this will not convince any magical ability that requires proficiency to activate.
I will also say I am a big advocate of having many tests that require proficiency rather than require getting a certain DC. For example a job offer should require not a single test of proficiency, but several, meaning that you can only get the job if you are proficient, rather than obtaining a DC. Similarly, a person proficient with the survival skill should not have to make a roll to start a fire or feed themselves for the day.
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
A DM can, but setting up a DC opens the door for features or magic items that could auto-succeed the check as well as those that get high bonus to the check etc...while requiring proficiency to attempt the task would prevent any chance of success without it in similar fashion to proficiency with thieves' tools is often required for certain task such as to pick lock.
Ah but nothing states you need to be proficient with thieve's tools to pick a lock either. You will need proficiency to pick the most difficult locks but, RAW, anyone with tools can make the dex check to try. Furthermore, if a character has a high bonus to the check without proficiency or a magic item intended to facilitate auto-success, why shouldn't success be possible in the former case and a forgone conclusion in the latter?
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
A DM can, but setting up a DC opens the door for features or magic items that could auto-succeed the check as well as those that get high bonus to the check etc...while requiring proficiency to attempt the task would prevent any chance of success without it in similar fashion to proficiency with thieves' tools is often required for certain task such as to pick lock.
Ah but nothing states you need to be proficient with thieve's tools to pick a lock either. You will need proficiency to pick the most difficult locks but, RAW, anyone with tools can make the dex check to try. Furthermore, if a character has a high bonus to the check without proficiency or a magic item intended to facilitate auto-success, why shouldn't success be possible in the former case and a forgone conclusion in the latter?
In point of fact, the PHB says nothing at all about under what circumstances a player meets the conditions to make an attempt, because that is not a player facing aspect of the game. A player voices what course of action they would like to pursue, and the DM determines if they roll for it, automatically succeed, or do not have the ability to succeed at all. Players do not initiate ability checks, the DM does. So while anyone can make the “attempt” in the sense of “my character attempts to pick the lock”, that does not mean they then get to immediately roll a d20 and expect to succeed if they somehow manage a 30 without prof, because first the DM must determine if the desired action is within the scope of the circumstance and the character’s abilities, as recorded on their character sheet, and lacking prof for a technical activity is a strong reason to say the activity is outside of said character’s abilities.
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
A DM can, but setting up a DC opens the door for features or magic items that could auto-succeed the check as well as those that get high bonus to the check etc...while requiring proficiency to attempt the task would prevent any chance of success without it in similar fashion to proficiency with thieves' tools is often required for certain task such as to pick lock.
Ah but nothing states you need to be proficient with thieve's tools to pick a lock either. You will need proficiency to pick the most difficult locks but, RAW, anyone with tools can make the dex check to try. Furthermore, if a character has a high bonus to the check without proficiency or a magic item intended to facilitate auto-success, why shouldn't success be possible in the former case and a forgone conclusion in the latter?
In point of fact, the PHB says nothing at all about under what circumstances a player meets the conditions to make an attempt, because that is not a player facing aspect of the game. A player voices what course of action they would like to pursue, and the DM determines if they roll for it, automatically succeed, or do not have the ability to succeed at all. Players do not initiate ability checks, the DM does. So while anyone can make the “attempt” in the sense of “my character attempts to pick the lock”, that does not mean they then get to immediately roll a d20 and expect to succeed if they somehow manage a 30 without prof, because first the DM must determine if the desired action is within the scope of the circumstance and the character’s abilities, as recorded on their character sheet, and lacking prof for a technical activity is a strong reason to say the activity is outside of said character’s abilities.
Care to answer the question posed for the purpose of useful discussion or are you just trolling, Captain Obvious?
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
A DM can, but setting up a DC opens the door for features or magic items that could auto-succeed the check as well as those that get high bonus to the check etc...while requiring proficiency to attempt the task would prevent any chance of success without it in similar fashion to proficiency with thieves' tools is often required for certain task such as to pick lock.
Ah but nothing states you need to be proficient with thieve's tools to pick a lock either. You will need proficiency to pick the most difficult locks but, RAW, anyone with tools can make the dex check to try. Furthermore, if a character has a high bonus to the check without proficiency or a magic item intended to facilitate auto-success, why shouldn't success be possible in the former case and a forgone conclusion in the latter?
In point of fact, the PHB says nothing at all about under what circumstances a player meets the conditions to make an attempt, because that is not a player facing aspect of the game. A player voices what course of action they would like to pursue, and the DM determines if they roll for it, automatically succeed, or do not have the ability to succeed at all. Players do not initiate ability checks, the DM does. So while anyone can make the “attempt” in the sense of “my character attempts to pick the lock”, that does not mean they then get to immediately roll a d20 and expect to succeed if they somehow manage a 30 without prof, because first the DM must determine if the desired action is within the scope of the circumstance and the character’s abilities, as recorded on their character sheet, and lacking prof for a technical activity is a strong reason to say the activity is outside of said character’s abilities.
Care to answer the question posed for the purpose of useful discussion, Captain Obvious?
I did, when I said that the absence of the proficiency indicates a lack of fundamental knowledge. No, there is not a passage that literally spells out absolute conditions that make something possible, but that cuts both ways. Having wildcard ability check bonuses is never described as making you capable of succeeding at something your character otherwise would not have the knowledge to seriously attempt. A DM might allow it or they might not, but that is purely a subjective decision, not one based on any rule or mechanic that gives a green light.
In Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition, a bard character automatically becomes proficient with certain musical instruments selected at the start of the game and can use their proficiency bonus to play these instruments. Bards are proficient with three musical instruments of their choice from the list provided in the Player’s Handbook, and they can gain proficiency with a fourth instrument if they choose the Entertainer background.The instruments a bard can play are typically determined by the character’s background and story. However, it is possible for a bard to learn and play other instruments by gaining the appropriate instrument proficiency, which can be achieved as they level up or through specific story developments.For a bard to play multiple instruments simultaneously, magical items or special abilities are usually required. For instance, magical instruments like the “Bards of the Bards” can allow a bard to use multiple spells at once. Additionally, some spells can enable a bard to produce multiple sounds, allowing them to perform like a one-person orchestra.
If it’s important for your bard character’s story to play multiple instruments, you can discuss with your Dungeon Master to find a narrative path for your character to develop this ability.
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
A DM can, but setting up a DC opens the door for features or magic items that could auto-succeed the check as well as those that get high bonus to the check etc...while requiring proficiency to attempt the task would prevent any chance of success without it in similar fashion to proficiency with thieves' tools is often required for certain task such as to pick lock.Dungeon Features
Ah but nothing states you need to be proficient with thieve's tools to pick a lock either. You will need proficiency to pick the most difficult locks but, RAW, anyone with tools can make the dex check to try. Furthermore, if a character has a high bonus to the check without proficiency or a magic item intended to facilitate auto-success, why shouldn't success be possible in the former case and a forgone conclusion in the latter?
Yup in general tools don't require proficiency to use, that's why i said it depends on the task. A few places in the games do in fact require proficiency to attempt a task;
A Lock for exemple mention that ""without the key, a creature proficient with thieves' tools can pick this lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity check" and many adventures have doors or traps requiring proficiency in tools to interact with them.
Similarly Working Together also mention a "character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task."
In the Dungeon Master Guide Dungeon Features such as Locked Doors mention that "Characters who don’t have the key to a locked door can pick the lock with a successful Dexterity check (doing so requires thieves’ tools and proficiency in their use)"
The main reason that i can see for specific task to require proficiency in a tool or even skill is to reflect a some level of expertise required only available people with a certain level of skill/knowledge and act as a difficulty threshold in some sense. The Devs have reiterated in the past that exceptions may exist, and the DM can always decide that while proficiency with any music instrument isn't required to play one, attempting to play a complex violon piece might in return do.
@JeremyECrawford Proficiency isn't required to use a tool, unless that tool's description says otherwise. Other things in the game might make exceptions and require proficiency, but those exceptions have no effect on how tools work otherwise.
Also as Bards you can use a musical instrument as a spellcasting focus for your bard spells, regardless if you're proficient with it or not.
Exceptions again exist such as Pipes of Haunting and Pipes of the Sewers, which specifically say "you must be proficient with wind instruments to use these pipes."
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
A DM can, but setting up a DC opens the door for features or magic items that could auto-succeed the check as well as those that get high bonus to the check etc...while requiring proficiency to attempt the task would prevent any chance of success without it in similar fashion to proficiency with thieves' tools is often required for certain task such as to pick lock.
Ah but nothing states you need to be proficient with thieve's tools to pick a lock either. You will need proficiency to pick the most difficult locks but, RAW, anyone with tools can make the dex check to try. Furthermore, if a character has a high bonus to the check without proficiency or a magic item intended to facilitate auto-success, why shouldn't success be possible in the former case and a forgone conclusion in the latter?
In point of fact, the PHB says nothing at all about under what circumstances a player meets the conditions to make an attempt, because that is not a player facing aspect of the game. A player voices what course of action they would like to pursue, and the DM determines if they roll for it, automatically succeed, or do not have the ability to succeed at all. Players do not initiate ability checks, the DM does. So while anyone can make the “attempt” in the sense of “my character attempts to pick the lock”, that does not mean they then get to immediately roll a d20 and expect to succeed if they somehow manage a 30 without prof, because first the DM must determine if the desired action is within the scope of the circumstance and the character’s abilities, as recorded on their character sheet, and lacking prof for a technical activity is a strong reason to say the activity is outside of said character’s abilities.
Care to answer the question posed for the purpose of useful discussion, Captain Obvious?
I did, when I said that the absence of the proficiency indicates a lack of fundamental knowledge. No, there is not a passage that literally spells out absolute conditions that make something possible, but that cuts both ways. Having wildcard ability check bonuses is never described as making you capable of succeeding at something your character otherwise would not have the knowledge to seriously attempt. A DM might allow it or they might not, but that is purely a subjective decision, not one based on any rule or mechanic that gives a green light.
So there is no situation under which a non-proficient character can successfully play an instrument? Even if they have a magic item designed to facilitate success for someone who is not proficient? What is the point of the myriad of magic items that give a bonus or advantage to skill a check but don't give the character proficiency? People can't just swim or pick locks any more than they can just play an instrument yet Gloves of Swimming and Climbing exist and so do Gloves of Thievery.
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.
It's not a "strawman" to state that the rules of 5e are as follows: You declare what you want your character to attempt, the DM is the one who decides if your attempt is automatically successful, automatically unsuccessful, or determined via a roll. That is as true for playing an instrument as it is for jumping (across a chasm then, which some people can do without training and some can't, since you found the moon example distasteful.)
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.
They don't need to include that line in 5e because EVERY attempt getting a check or not is determined by the GM. They can use presence or absence of proficiency to make that determination, class, race, or literally anything else they want. Or nothing.
It's not a "strawman" to state that the rules of 5e are as follows: You declare what you want your character to attempt, the DM is the one who decides if your attempt is automatically successful, automatically unsuccessful, or determined via a roll. That is as true for playing an instrument as it is for jumping (across a chasm then, which some people can do without training and some can't, since you found the moon example distasteful.)
I see an additional way the DM can decide when a character attempt to do certain task; cannot be used resultfully.
If proficiency is required to use something, attempt by an unproficient will be meaningless. It's not just a question of success/failure or hit/miss but unconclusive, akin to how targeting a creature out of range/reach doesn't result in an attack that miss but instead just can't attack it.
I think in the Chinese context, playing loud and playing well are two different concepts, just like if you put a cat on a guqin, it can also step on the strings with its feet to make a sound, but a real performer, he plays the melody, not the sound.
As a GM, I'd allow Jack of all Trades to work with musical instruments. Meaning that yes, a bard can play any and all instruments well enough to make music.
I'm not too sure if that's intended. The rules say it applies to 'any ability check' - but then adds half proficiency to all skills. I'd say ... yea, bards get half proficiency at basically everything. If they need to, they can cook a meal, cobble your shoes or read or draw a map. Also play any instrument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
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.
Saying "there's IRL savants" is a rather weak argument for a game like D&D where those kind of things are defined (and limited) by features, and trying to play that card could honestly come across as a flag for MC Syndrome. And the DMG specifically says "By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage." I would say "I attempt to play an instrument when my character doesn't have a prof that's even close" qualifies as a "bad plan". Players are free to come up with plans, but the DM is free to say "they don't work" if there's no reason the character should have the knowledge to pull them off. That was clearly a conscious decision by the design team as well.
The question wasn't "Can the bard launch himself to the moon simply by playing an instrument." Nor was it "Can a quadriplegic bard play violin?"
There is actually a lot of similarity between instruments but above and beyond that, the whole point of 'Jack of All Trades' is knowing a bit about everything. There is no way to simply jump to the moon just based on a good athletics skill check. There is a way to play any given musical instrument. Jack of All Trades is a reason the character could reasonably have knowledge. That is the whole purpose of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Saying "there's IRL savants" is a rather weak argument for a game like D&D where those kind of things are defined (and limited) by features, and trying to play that card could honestly come across as a flag for MC Syndrome. And the DMG specifically says "By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage." I would say "I attempt to play an instrument when my character doesn't have a prof that's even close" qualifies as a "bad plan". Players are free to come up with plans, but the DM is free to say "they don't work" if there's no reason the character should have the knowledge to pull them off. That was clearly a conscious decision by the design team as well.
You are entitled to your opinion. It does not change what rules are actually written in this game. OP asked if you have to be proficient to play a musical instrument and the fact is that it does not say anywhere in the 5e rules that you do. Referring to the fact that a DM can rule any way they please on any matter at any time does not change that either. Answering a rules question with the DM can do what ever they want is as good as no answer at all.
No, it's "this is not something you can control". That is a valid answer to "can I do this" questions. And the Air Bud argument is specious when discussing literally anything where it would be unreasonable to expect all foreseeable circumstances to be addressed, and clearly the RAI of having specific instrument proficiencies instead of just rolling them into Performance is to represent "this is an instrument you know how to play".
I can see giving a decent roll if the Bard has proficiency in a similar instrument. But playing a different class of instrument is not nearly the same. Stringed instruments is a completely different skill set to playing a wind instrument or horn.
If it's a similar instrument and the Bard had time to practice a bit I'd let them roll no penalty.
Anybody can make a Performance check but it's gonna sound awful. On second thought, I wouldn't let them roll. I would just tell them you make a lot of noise.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
RAW, you can roll so far as I'm aware (happy to accept a specific quote from the rules otherwise), if you're proficient, you get the bonus. Otherwise, you don't. Just like any other skill.
I'd play it differently though.
You only get to roll if you're proficient in an instrument. People who have never learned an instrument just make annoying noises when they try.
If you're proficient in an instrument but not the instrument, you get a roll, but no proficiency bonus. After learning the piano,.I can get a tune out of almost any instrument like a guitar, just nowhere near the quality of the piano.
If you're proficient in the instrument, you get the proficiency bonus as well.
This is a situation where the lack of granularity in D&D causes issues. By making things a d20 + fixed ability score + PB (yes/no), you don't get the ability to account for many factors.
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.
A DM can, but setting up a DC opens the door for features or magic items that could auto-succeed the check as well as those that get high bonus to the check etc...while requiring proficiency to attempt the task would prevent any chance of success without it in similar fashion to proficiency with thieves' tools is often required for certain task such as to pick lock.
I see nothing wrong with a complete amateur picking up a music instrument they know nothing about (are not proficient with) and attempting to play it. It will sound horrible and fail to activate any magical ability and not impress anyone, but they should certainly get a DC to convince someone that they are proficient with the instrument.
The response should be "Hey, you totally suck and need to go into a cave and practice some more." But they would admit they have played the instrument and could believe they are proficient with it.
But this will not convince any magical ability that requires proficiency to activate.
I will also say I am a big advocate of having many tests that require proficiency rather than require getting a certain DC. For example a job offer should require not a single test of proficiency, but several, meaning that you can only get the job if you are proficient, rather than obtaining a DC. Similarly, a person proficient with the survival skill should not have to make a roll to start a fire or feed themselves for the day.
Ah but nothing states you need to be proficient with thieve's tools to pick a lock either. You will need proficiency to pick the most difficult locks but, RAW, anyone with tools can make the dex check to try. Furthermore, if a character has a high bonus to the check without proficiency or a magic item intended to facilitate auto-success, why shouldn't success be possible in the former case and a forgone conclusion in the latter?
In point of fact, the PHB says nothing at all about under what circumstances a player meets the conditions to make an attempt, because that is not a player facing aspect of the game. A player voices what course of action they would like to pursue, and the DM determines if they roll for it, automatically succeed, or do not have the ability to succeed at all. Players do not initiate ability checks, the DM does. So while anyone can make the “attempt” in the sense of “my character attempts to pick the lock”, that does not mean they then get to immediately roll a d20 and expect to succeed if they somehow manage a 30 without prof, because first the DM must determine if the desired action is within the scope of the circumstance and the character’s abilities, as recorded on their character sheet, and lacking prof for a technical activity is a strong reason to say the activity is outside of said character’s abilities.
Care to answer the question posed for the purpose of useful discussion or are you just trolling, Captain Obvious?
I did, when I said that the absence of the proficiency indicates a lack of fundamental knowledge. No, there is not a passage that literally spells out absolute conditions that make something possible, but that cuts both ways. Having wildcard ability check bonuses is never described as making you capable of succeeding at something your character otherwise would not have the knowledge to seriously attempt. A DM might allow it or they might not, but that is purely a subjective decision, not one based on any rule or mechanic that gives a green light.
In Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition, a bard character automatically becomes proficient with certain musical instruments selected at the start of the game and can use their proficiency bonus to play these instruments. Bards are proficient with three musical instruments of their choice from the list provided in the Player’s Handbook, and they can gain proficiency with a fourth instrument if they choose the Entertainer background.The instruments a bard can play are typically determined by the character’s background and story. However, it is possible for a bard to learn and play other instruments by gaining the appropriate instrument proficiency, which can be achieved as they level up or through specific story developments.For a bard to play multiple instruments simultaneously, magical items or special abilities are usually required. For instance, magical instruments like the “Bards of the Bards” can allow a bard to use multiple spells at once. Additionally, some spells can enable a bard to produce multiple sounds, allowing them to perform like a one-person orchestra.
If it’s important for your bard character’s story to play multiple instruments, you can discuss with your Dungeon Master to find a narrative path for your character to develop this ability.
Yup in general tools don't require proficiency to use, that's why i said it depends on the task. A few places in the games do in fact require proficiency to attempt a task;
A Lock for exemple mention that ""without the key, a creature proficient with thieves' tools can pick this lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity check" and many adventures have doors or traps requiring proficiency in tools to interact with them.
Similarly Working Together also mention a "character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task."
In the Dungeon Master Guide Dungeon Features such as Locked Doors mention that "Characters who don’t have the key to a locked door can pick the lock with a successful Dexterity check (doing so requires thieves’ tools and proficiency in their use)"
The main reason that i can see for specific task to require proficiency in a tool or even skill is to reflect a some level of expertise required only available people with a certain level of skill/knowledge and act as a difficulty threshold in some sense. The Devs have reiterated in the past that exceptions may exist, and the DM can always decide that while proficiency with any music instrument isn't required to play one, attempting to play a complex violon piece might in return do.
Also as Bards you can use a musical instrument as a spellcasting focus for your bard spells, regardless if you're proficient with it or not.
Exceptions again exist such as Pipes of Haunting and Pipes of the Sewers, which specifically say "you must be proficient with wind instruments to use these pipes."
So there is no situation under which a non-proficient character can successfully play an instrument? Even if they have a magic item designed to facilitate success for someone who is not proficient? What is the point of the myriad of magic items that give a bonus or advantage to skill a check but don't give the character proficiency? People can't just swim or pick locks any more than they can just play an instrument yet Gloves of Swimming and Climbing exist and so do Gloves of Thievery.
It's not a "strawman" to state that the rules of 5e are as follows: You declare what you want your character to attempt, the DM is the one who decides if your attempt is automatically successful, automatically unsuccessful, or determined via a roll. That is as true for playing an instrument as it is for jumping (across a chasm then, which some people can do without training and some can't, since you found the moon example distasteful.)
They don't need to include that line in 5e because EVERY attempt getting a check or not is determined by the GM. They can use presence or absence of proficiency to make that determination, class, race, or literally anything else they want. Or nothing.
I see an additional way the DM can decide when a character attempt to do certain task; cannot be used resultfully.
If proficiency is required to use something, attempt by an unproficient will be meaningless. It's not just a question of success/failure or hit/miss but unconclusive, akin to how targeting a creature out of range/reach doesn't result in an attack that miss but instead just can't attack it.
我觉得在汉语语境中，弹得响和弹得好听是两个概念，就好比你把一只猫放在古琴上，它也能通过脚把琴弦踩出响声，但是一个真正的演奏者，他弹的是旋律，而不是响声。
===========
I think in the Chinese context, playing loud and playing well are two different concepts, just like if you put a cat on a guqin, it can also step on the strings with its feet to make a sound, but a real performer, he plays the melody, not the sound.
As a GM, I'd allow Jack of all Trades to work with musical instruments. Meaning that yes, a bard can play any and all instruments well enough to make music.
I'm not too sure if that's intended. The rules say it applies to 'any ability check' - but then adds half proficiency to all skills. I'd say ... yea, bards get half proficiency at basically everything. If they need to, they can cook a meal, cobble your shoes or read or draw a map. Also play any instrument.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The question wasn't "Can the bard launch himself to the moon simply by playing an instrument." Nor was it "Can a quadriplegic bard play violin?"
There is actually a lot of similarity between instruments but above and beyond that, the whole point of 'Jack of All Trades' is knowing a bit about everything. There is no way to simply jump to the moon just based on a good athletics skill check. There is a way to play any given musical instrument. Jack of All Trades is a reason the character could reasonably have knowledge. That is the whole purpose of it.