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.
Except Jack of All Trades doesn't supersede the fact that the DM determines what activities a character is able to attempt. And saying "there's a lot of similarity between instruments" is extremely reductive of the issue; I and numerous other people have said that if you have a comparable instrument prof it makes sense to roll to play another instrument well, but you cannot seriously be trying to tell me that if all three of a Bard's instrument profs are with wind instruments (meaning those are the ones they have actual training in) they'd be able to pick up a string or percussion instrument and play them at professional quality. Jack of All Trades means that if your DM thinks this is something your character could attempt with a reasonable chance of success they get a slight boost, it doesn't mean your character is green-lit to attempt anything and everything any other character might make an ability check for.
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.
Except Jack of All Trades doesn't supersede the fact that the DM determines what activities a character is able to attempt. And saying "there's a lot of similarity between instruments" is extremely reductive of the issue; I and numerous other people have said that if you have a comparable instrument prof it makes sense to roll to play another instrument well, but you cannot seriously be trying to tell me that if all three of a Bard's instrument profs are with wind instruments (meaning those are the ones they have actual training in) they'd be able to pick up a string or percussion instrument and play them at professional quality. Jack of All Trades means that if your DM thinks this is something your character could attempt with a reasonable chance of success they get a slight boost, it doesn't mean your character is green-lit to attempt anything and everything any other character might make an ability check for.
While it is true that the DM can decide anything they wish for their particular campaign, the purpose of such discussions as this is to discuss what is reasonable. We will all have differing opinions for any given DM to consider and make their own decision based upon, or to reject them all and come up with something completely different, themselves.
I suppose the real question is whether Jack of all Trades actually covers actual 'Trades,' i.e. tool use.
"Professional quality" though is problematic as a measure. One does not need to have actual proficiency in, say, athletics, to be a professional athlete under these rules. One can successfully hide or sneak without any stealth proficiency. A lack of proficiency just makes it more difficult. Also, not all instruments are equally difficult to play. There is a reason why there is the standard joke about one band member playing the tambourine or triangle, for example. Or a single drum vs a full drum set. And even with a full drum set, one could still simply play just one of the drums while ignoring the rest of the kit.
Instruments proficiencies are strangely specific in these rules anyway. Weapons are not broken down so precisely. No class, not even bards, has to chose only, say, three specific weapons. Vehicles are divided simply into land or water. Someone proficient in water vehicles is proficient in helming everything from a ridden log to the largest ship of the line and beyond. What is the play balance point, if any, of limiting bards to the three instruments and no more?
But the theory behind Jack of All Trades is that the bard *does* know the basics of everything. Which would include the basics of stringed instruments generally. Or percussion. Or woodwind, etc. They are not simply picking up an instrument they have absolutely no knowledge of, but something they have at least the basic concepts of.
The theory behind Jack of All Trades is that a Bard dabbles in many fields. If you actually have comprehensive training in a skill or tool in 5e, then you have proficiency in it. Ergo, by definition lack of proficiency = lack of training, even if you have a feature that slightly improves your performance when the DM lets you roll on the activity in any case. Which brings up the biggest reason why interpreting JoAT as carte blanche to roll on every possible activity is a bad idea: in 5e the d20 has a lot more sway over success or failure on most ability checks than the static modifiers. If you’re going to let the Bard try for muscle power alongside the Barbarian on Athletic rolls, even though he’s got no prof and little 8-10 STR noodle arms, there’s still a significant chance he beats out the Barbarian, particularly on the high DC checks where luck has the most influence on the outcome. Jack of All Trades improves what a Bard can already do- which includes all the rolls any character might make without prof, but making it close to a blank check to seriously attempt ability rolls seems to push them beyond simply being versatile into being excessively dominant in the party. Even the skill monkeys need to stay in their lane to a certain degree on checks.
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.
And it's completely valid if a DM wants to use JOAT as justification for allowing the check regardless of instrument. But another DM saying "don't bother rolling" even to a Bard with JOAT is not wrong to do so. The point is that it's the DM's choice.
The theory behind Jack of All Trades is that a Bard dabbles in many fields. If you actually have comprehensive training in a skill or tool in 5e, then you have proficiency in it. Ergo, by definition lack of proficiency = lack of training, even if you have a feature that slightly improves your performance when the DM lets you roll on the activity in any case. Which brings up the biggest reason why interpreting JoAT as carte blanche to roll on every possible activity is a bad idea: in 5e the d20 has a lot more sway over success or failure on most ability checks than the static modifiers. If you’re going to let the Bard try for muscle power alongside the Barbarian on Athletic rolls, even though he’s got no prof and little 8-10 STR noodle arms, there’s still a significant chance he beats out the Barbarian, particularly on the high DC checks where luck has the most influence on the outcome. Jack of All Trades improves what a Bard can already do- which includes all the rolls any character might make without prof, but making it close to a blank check to seriously attempt ability rolls seems to push them beyond simply being versatile into being excessively dominant in the party. Even the skill monkeys need to stay in their lane to a certain degree on checks.
Dominant at what, exactly? Playing various instruments? How and when, exactly, would this ever materially affect play balance?
Who, exactly, are they going to overshadow with this?
Even to the extent this applies to actual trades, they are not going to overshadow any actual artificer. On a roll here and there, perhaps, but not on average over time. And if a roll here and there is an issue, then the whole ability is an issue. This does not apply to weapons or armor. I cannot think of any class that, as a class, has vehicle proficiency. What is this 'lane' that it is important that they stay in?
The theory behind Jack of All Trades is that a Bard dabbles in many fields. If you actually have comprehensive training in a skill or tool in 5e, then you have proficiency in it. Ergo, by definition lack of proficiency = lack of training, even if you have a feature that slightly improves your performance when the DM lets you roll on the activity in any case. Which brings up the biggest reason why interpreting JoAT as carte blanche to roll on every possible activity is a bad idea: in 5e the d20 has a lot more sway over success or failure on most ability checks than the static modifiers. If you’re going to let the Bard try for muscle power alongside the Barbarian on Athletic rolls, even though he’s got no prof and little 8-10 STR noodle arms, there’s still a significant chance he beats out the Barbarian, particularly on the high DC checks where luck has the most influence on the outcome. Jack of All Trades improves what a Bard can already do- which includes all the rolls any character might make without prof, but making it close to a blank check to seriously attempt ability rolls seems to push them beyond simply being versatile into being excessively dominant in the party. Even the skill monkeys need to stay in their lane to a certain degree on checks.
Dominant at what, exactly? Playing various instruments? How and when, exactly, would this ever materially affect play balance?
Who, exactly, are they going to overshadow with this?
Even to the extent this applies to actual trades, they are not going to overshadow any actual artificer. On a roll here and there, perhaps, but not on average over time. And if a roll here and there is an issue, then the whole ability is an issue. This does not apply to weapons or armor. I cannot think of any class that, as a class, has vehicle proficiency. What is this 'lane' that it is important that they stay in?
It’s not about tools specifically, it’s about the underlying principle of what qualifies a character to make a roll for something that primarily involves technical knowledge or a similar background. Having a proficiency is the meta signifier of having that knowledge, ergo one who does not have proficiency is- by the quantifiable aspects of the game- lacking that foundation. That does not prevent someone from carrying out the action of say strumming the strings of an instrument, sticking some tools in a lock, attempting to glean details from tracks, or trying to parse through magical notation to understand some working, etc.; what it does mean is that the DM has a firm basis to say you can’t read and play a piece of sheet music for that instrument, pick the lock, glean detailed information from the tracks, or decipher the notation, because your character does not have an appropriate proficiency and thus doesn’t have the background needed, and JoAT still does not supersede the DM’s prerogative, nor do I think it should be a substitute for proficiency in making the judgement because then the character essentially has proficiency in everything. JoAT is meant to augment the rolls the DM chooses to greenlight, not enable all rolls.
And none of this means that you can only roll on proficiency; if you review the thread you’ll see numerous people including myself have said for an instrument having a similar prof gives a basis for making a straight roll with another. The point is that profs define your character’s capabilities, and so attempting to carry out a task that calls for a significant degree of skill means your character should have something on their sheet to indicate they have that knowledge or something adjacent, and while the argument exists that JoAT covers “adjacent” for all skills, imo that interprets it too broadly, and so it in itself does not seem to be a good basis for saying a Bard can, to return to the original question, “play” an instrument they don’t have a prof for when they are attempting to demonstrate competence with that instrument as opposed to simply producing noise or very simple melodies.
The theory behind Jack of All Trades is that a Bard dabbles in many fields. If you actually have comprehensive training in a skill or tool in 5e, then you have proficiency in it. Ergo, by definition lack of proficiency = lack of training, even if you have a feature that slightly improves your performance when the DM lets you roll on the activity in any case. Which brings up the biggest reason why interpreting JoAT as carte blanche to roll on every possible activity is a bad idea: in 5e the d20 has a lot more sway over success or failure on most ability checks than the static modifiers. If you’re going to let the Bard try for muscle power alongside the Barbarian on Athletic rolls, even though he’s got no prof and little 8-10 STR noodle arms, there’s still a significant chance he beats out the Barbarian, particularly on the high DC checks where luck has the most influence on the outcome. Jack of All Trades improves what a Bard can already do- which includes all the rolls any character might make without prof, but making it close to a blank check to seriously attempt ability rolls seems to push them beyond simply being versatile into being excessively dominant in the party. Even the skill monkeys need to stay in their lane to a certain degree on checks.
Dominant at what, exactly? Playing various instruments? How and when, exactly, would this ever materially affect play balance?
Who, exactly, are they going to overshadow with this?
Even to the extent this applies to actual trades, they are not going to overshadow any actual artificer. On a roll here and there, perhaps, but not on average over time. And if a roll here and there is an issue, then the whole ability is an issue. This does not apply to weapons or armor. I cannot think of any class that, as a class, has vehicle proficiency. What is this 'lane' that it is important that they stay in?
It’s not about tools specifically, it’s about the underlying principle of what qualifies a character to make a roll for something that primarily involves technical knowledge or a similar background. Having a proficiency is the meta signifier of having that knowledge, ergo one who does not have proficiency is- by the quantifiable aspects of the game- lacking that foundation. That does not prevent someone from carrying out the action of say strumming the strings of an instrument, sticking some tools in a lock, attempting to glean details from tracks, or trying to parse through magical notation to understand some working, etc.; what it does mean is that the DM has a firm basis to say you can’t read and play a piece of sheet music for that instrument, pick the lock, glean detailed information from the tracks, or decipher the notation, because your character does not have an appropriate proficiency and thus doesn’t have the background needed, and JoAT still does not supersede the DM’s prerogative, nor do I think it should be a substitute for proficiency in making the judgement because then the character essentially has proficiency in everything. JoAT is meant to augment the rolls the DM chooses to greenlight, not enable all rolls.
And none of this means that you can only roll on proficiency; if you review the thread you’ll see numerous people including myself have said for an instrument having a similar prof gives a basis for making a straight roll with another. The point is that profs define your character’s capabilities, and so attempting to carry out a task that calls for a significant degree of skill means your character should have something on their sheet to indicate they have that knowledge or something adjacent, and while the argument exists that JoAT covers “adjacent” for all skills, imo that interprets it too broadly, and so it in itself does not seem to be a good basis for saying a Bard can, to return to the original question, “play” an instrument they don’t have a prof for when they are attempting to demonstrate competence with that instrument as opposed to simply producing noise or very simple melodies.
The context is not whether the Bard can operate a nuclear reactor (or magical equivalent), but whether they can use any instrument at half proficiency. Even if they do not know a similar instrument.
I agree that there should be limits, that at some point there should be a line beyond which is 'no, that you do not know.' However I just do not see that being instruments, in a heroic fantasy setting.
Obviously the line is subjective, but given the original question was so broad, a comprehensive answer needs to address what a character’s proficiencies are indicative of, and going by the section on ability checks in the DMG profs are indicative of more than just +X to the rolls.
Obviously the line is subjective, but given the original question was so broad, a comprehensive answer needs to address what a character’s proficiencies are indicative of, and going by the section on ability checks in the DMG profs are indicative of more than just +X to the rolls.
That said, though, what does any given instrument actually grant a character more than the performance skill already does? Is there any substantial different in performance enhancement between a song accompanied by a lyre and one accompanies by a drum? Under the rules, there is no non-magical instrument that gives +X to performance and an instrument is not a requirement for a performance (IIRC, Xanathar's allows an instrument to give advantage to performance but that is regardless of the instrument).
Meanwhile, History skill has no requirement to specialize, even though history is a lot wider a topic than how to play any two instruments. Or Nature. Or Arcana... any knowledge skill, really.
A DM might say "You do not know that because it is a region you have not heard of until now," but the DM could similarly rule specifically for, say, bagpipes, on the basis that in their world that is a region specific instrument the bard would not have had knowledge of in advance.
And also a strict ruling on 'you need to be proficient to use a tool' means most people starve because only people with cooking tools proficiency (likely no one in the party and frankly likely most of the general population based on the background rules) do not have said proficiency.
I wonder how many DMs out there are actually denying their Bards success in musical challenges or use of magical items because of the wrong musical instrument choice proficiency choices. "Sorry, without a proficiency in tambourine, you can can not access the magic ship, the rest of the party is sleepy and there's no place they're going to."
I agree with Kotath's point about how instruments are hyper specific proficiencies while knowledges and weapons come in broad swaths of proficiency; and that disparity is weird. Thinking on this, I think I'd house rule something akin to proficiencies in categories of musical instruments (say voice, percussion, horns, small strings, large strings, keyed ... just spitballing here). Non Bard classes can take single instrument proficiencies, but the Bard gets say three categories of instrument, some colleges may grant more (Swords bard would not for example, actually quite a few wouldn't), and still use the jack of all trades to give Bards the ability to pick up unfamiliar instruments (or maybe limit that to the musical colleges), and allow for swapping out proficiencies at level up relegating former proficiencies to "out of practice" as I've suggested prior. I could picture layering on something like weapon specialization to instruments as an optional system for really hard core Bard games, but really, and this is out of curiosity, how often does the specific instrument a Bard uses in your games really matter (outside of setting realism or whateve
You are the one who specifically said that any player can attempt any skill check….
There’s no such thing as a skill check in 5e only ability checks. Anyone can potentially make any ability check if the DM calls for/allows it. If the DM decides a particular skill is relevant and you have proficiency in that skill then you can add your proficiency bonus. If the DM decides a particular tool is relevant and you have proficiency in that tool then you can add your proficiency bonus. If the DM decides a particular skill and/or tool is relevant and you have proficiency in either one then you can add your proficiency bonus but if you are proficient with both then you also have advantage on the roll. A instrument is just another tool like any other. Those are the rules.
Playing any instrument is just another Charisma check and if you are proficient with that particular type of instrument then you can add your proficiency bonus to the check. If the DM decides that Performance is relevant then even if you’re not proficient with that instrument you could still add your proficiency bonus to that Charisma check if you’re proficient with that skill. If the DM says Performance is relevant and you’re both proficient in that skill and proficient with that instrument then you would both add your proficiency bonus to the check and roll with advantage. Since most bards have proficiency in Performance and since most people would agree that playing an instrument is performing then any bard should likely be able to play any instrument and add their proficiency bonus to the check. (If you have Expertise in Performance then they would even be able to add double proficiency to the check too.)
All proficiency with an instrument does is give you advantage on the check or guarantee you that you can add you proficiency to the check even if your Performance proficiency wouldn’t count or if you don’t have it.
The only time you can’t make an ability check without specifically having proficiency in something is you can’t try to pick a lock unless you have proficiency with thieves’ tools. That’s the only exception.
Obviously the line is subjective, but given the original question was so broad, a comprehensive answer needs to address what a character’s proficiencies are indicative of, and going by the section on ability checks in the DMG profs are indicative of more than just +X to the rolls.
That said, though, what does any given instrument actually grant a character more than the performance skill already does? Is there any substantial different in performance enhancement between a song accompanied by a lyre and one accompanies by a drum? Under the rules, there is no non-magical instrument that gives +X to performance and an instrument is not a requirement for a performance (IIRC, Xanathar's allows an instrument to give advantage to performance but that is regardless of the instrument).
Meanwhile, History skill has no requirement to specialize, even though history is a lot wider a topic than how to play any two instruments. Or Nature. Or Arcana... any knowledge skill, really.
A DM might say "You do not know that because it is a region you have not heard of until now," but the DM could similarly rule specifically for, say, bagpipes, on the basis that in their world that is a region specific instrument the bard would not have had knowledge of in advance.
And also a strict ruling on 'you need to be proficient to use a tool' means most people starve because only people with cooking tools proficiency (likely no one in the party and frankly likely most of the general population based on the background rules) do not have said proficiency.
The obvious point is that playing an instrument requires the instrument prof, not Performance prof. Otherwise why have the instrument profs in the first place?
The obvious point is that playing an instrument requires the instrument prof, not Performance prof. Otherwise why have the instrument profs in the first place?
I don't like the instrument proficiencies.
My bard tends to be an Orator: Storyteller, possibly some epic poetry, etc. I don't really like to play an instrument let alone 3 of them, and many in the drop menu I don't know what they are. I'd prefer it if I could exchange those instrument proficiencies for other tool proficiencies instead.
Correct me if I'm wrong about others in the thread being wrong, but a lack of proficiency wouldn't mean you can't read the sheet music. It means you don't know how to use the instrument to generate those notes. The notes themselves are still the same for any medium and a bard who can read music should be able to whistle or hum the tune of any piece of music regardless of the instrument it is meant for, no?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
My bard tends to be an Orator: Storyteller, possibly some epic poetry, etc. I don't really like to play an instrument let alone 3 of them, and many in the drop menu I don't know what they are. I'd prefer it if I could exchange those instrument proficiencies for other tool proficiencies instead.
I don’t mind that there are instrument proficiencies, I just don’t like that they’re obligatory for bards. I can’t carry a tune in a bucket for crying out loud, but I love playing as bards, so I also usually play them as actors, storytellers, and once even a poet too. Luckily the other main DM in my IRL group lets me swap instruments for languages, and in PbP I don’t actually have to sing or play anything at all and can just type that my character is singing and playing and done even have to pretend to pretend to actually do it. But it would be really nice if there were official alternatives to instruments instead too.
The obvious point is that playing an instrument requires the instrument prof, not Performance prof. Otherwise why have the instrument profs in the first place?
I don't like the instrument proficiencies.
My bard tends to be an Orator: Storyteller, possibly some epic poetry, etc. I don't really like to play an instrument let alone 3 of them, and many in the drop menu I don't know what they are. I'd prefer it if I could exchange those instrument proficiencies for other tool proficiencies instead.
Correct me if I'm wrong about others in the thread being wrong, but a lack of proficiency wouldn't mean you can't read the sheet music. It means you don't know how to use the instrument to generate those notes. The notes themselves are still the same for any medium and a bard who can read music should be able to whistle or hum the tune of any piece of music regardless of the instrument it is meant for, no?
"Read" as in "know the names and kinds of notes", yes probably. "Read" as in "understand what that would actually sound like and be able to play", no. There are, in point of fact, differences in the notations for different instruments, some minor and some significant. A sheet for drums or another rhythm instrument, for instance, is going to look radically different from a sheet for a piano.
As for trading out 3 instrument profs for tool profs, doing that at a 1 to 1 is a bit of a stretch because tools are generally going to have more practical applications than instruments (which would be why Bards get 3 while no other core class gives more than 1 tool prof), so you're kinda trading up on a direct swap. Not game breaking or anything, but it is a consideration.
My bard tends to be an Orator: Storyteller, possibly some epic poetry, etc. I don't really like to play an instrument let alone 3 of them, and many in the drop menu I don't know what they are. I'd prefer it if I could exchange those instrument proficiencies for other tool proficiencies instead.
I don’t mind that there are instrument proficiencies, I just don’t like that they’re obligatory for bards. I can’t carry a tune in a bucket for crying out loud, but I love playing as bards, so I also usually play them as actors, storytellers, and once even a poet too. Luckily the other main DM in my IRL group lets me swap instruments for languages, and in PbP I don’t actually have to sing or play anything at all and can just type that my character is singing and playing and done even have to pretend to pretend to actually do it. But it would be really nice if there were official alternatives to instruments instead too.
Instruments for languages is a better swap in terms of utility. Plus it's not like you actually personally should need to sing or play music for your character to use their profs in any case. At the end of the day "the magic of music" is the core theme of Bards, so I doubt the association will be going anywhere.
That would be a very, very generous description, but I was in band for a while back in junior high and high school, so I know the basics.
I can, at best, play very simple tunes on a keyboard. I once was at least decent on a recorder but have never even tried any other woodwinds and am (and always have been) completely useless on a guitar. I am very rusty with sheet music but have a good idea of what those notes on paper would sound like when played. Most of chording is memory (for the basic knowledge) and muscle memory beyond that, but the basics are the same. And if you can master a guitar, I am fairly certain that you would also be good with a keyboard, even if not amazing. I mentioned earlier the difference between just drumming away on the nearest object (which pretty much everyone can do to some degree) and complex drumming with full kit.
I think one of the stumbling blocks in this discussion is the ability to reasonably try anything at all vs the ability to succeed at anything at all.
Let's start with voice, since it is not a listed instrument and is considered part of performance skill. Pretty much everyone can manage a passable Happy Birthday song. It is a very simple melody, short, with easy to remember words. That does not mean that everyone can manage the Habanera or Modern Major General. Not even on the equivalent of 'a good roll.'
Similarly with instruments, there is a big difference between picking one up and strumming out a very basic tune of some sort and playing some very specific, very complex piece. Similarly, playing solo vs playing in a band or symphony.
To me, Jack of All Trades is the ability to do the former. It does not mean you de facto know, let alone be able to competently perform every musical piece in existence, any more than History skill equating (proficient or not, or even with expertise) knowing literally everything, including things your character would have had no chance to learn yet.
The thread seems to have ballooned (to three pages and counting) because people are asserting house rules (which may well be logical and even good ones) as the rules if the game - or perhaps think they are the rules of the game. Given that the OP is clearly someone who is still learning the rules, we should be very carefully delineating the rules and "I would rule this at my table because I think it improves the game".
This is what the rules say:
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, as described in chapter 10. Each type of musical instrument requires a separate proficiency.
If you do an ability check to play music with an instrument you have proficiency with, you can add your proficiency bonus. As Crawford said, unless it states otherwise, you don't have to have proficiency with a tool to attempt a task unless it says otherwise. It doesn't, so you don't need it.
Again, it could make complete sense and it could improve the game to rule it otherwise, but that's going into House Rules and should be clearly labelled as such in a thread.about helping someone understand the game.
As for the difference between Performance and an instrument...not much mechanically speaking, really, unless the DM contrives a situation to require it:
Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you delight an audience with...music...
Unless the DM contrives a situation where your instrument is...instrumental...in the task, then Performance works just fine to do the same check, and even then it's quite easy to see Performance working anyway. Having proficiency in an instrument would mostly allow you to skip Performance and use that proficiency elsewhere.
Apologies for the lack of sources, I'm using my app and no time to mess about with the website.
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.
I generally agree, but there's also the part from the DMG about "By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility"; exactly what constitutes "a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances" is obviously up in the air, but the absence of a relevant proficiency is a commonly used one, ergo (as I've said several times) the answer to "can bards play an instrument without proficiency" based on what's actually printed in the books, personal experience, and observed experience is "it depends". There is no hard rule delineating what can and cannot be achieved without proficiency, but at the same time the DM has explicit fiat to say "it doesn't make sense for your character to be able to succeed at X activity because you don't have an applicable proficiency". Again, where exactly the line is drawn if the DM wants to draw one is subjective, but the DM fiat is there and no class feature- such as Jack of All Trades- intrinsically supersedes it.
Okay, that's addressing what's actually written in the books. As a brief personal take, I would err conservatively on stretching instrument use, because the fact that they made 10 different options for instruments in the PHB rather than just saying "strings, horns, percussion, etc." suggests to me that the intent was that a character be specialized rather than going wide on instruments. And if you really want to be an omnimusician, a Bard with the Entertainer background and the Skilled feat has 7 instrument profs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Except Jack of All Trades doesn't supersede the fact that the DM determines what activities a character is able to attempt. And saying "there's a lot of similarity between instruments" is extremely reductive of the issue; I and numerous other people have said that if you have a comparable instrument prof it makes sense to roll to play another instrument well, but you cannot seriously be trying to tell me that if all three of a Bard's instrument profs are with wind instruments (meaning those are the ones they have actual training in) they'd be able to pick up a string or percussion instrument and play them at professional quality. Jack of All Trades means that if your DM thinks this is something your character could attempt with a reasonable chance of success they get a slight boost, it doesn't mean your character is green-lit to attempt anything and everything any other character might make an ability check for.
While it is true that the DM can decide anything they wish for their particular campaign, the purpose of such discussions as this is to discuss what is reasonable. We will all have differing opinions for any given DM to consider and make their own decision based upon, or to reject them all and come up with something completely different, themselves.
I suppose the real question is whether Jack of all Trades actually covers actual 'Trades,' i.e. tool use.
"Professional quality" though is problematic as a measure. One does not need to have actual proficiency in, say, athletics, to be a professional athlete under these rules. One can successfully hide or sneak without any stealth proficiency. A lack of proficiency just makes it more difficult. Also, not all instruments are equally difficult to play. There is a reason why there is the standard joke about one band member playing the tambourine or triangle, for example. Or a single drum vs a full drum set. And even with a full drum set, one could still simply play just one of the drums while ignoring the rest of the kit.
Instruments proficiencies are strangely specific in these rules anyway. Weapons are not broken down so precisely. No class, not even bards, has to chose only, say, three specific weapons. Vehicles are divided simply into land or water. Someone proficient in water vehicles is proficient in helming everything from a ridden log to the largest ship of the line and beyond. What is the play balance point, if any, of limiting bards to the three instruments and no more?
But the theory behind Jack of All Trades is that the bard *does* know the basics of everything. Which would include the basics of stringed instruments generally. Or percussion. Or woodwind, etc. They are not simply picking up an instrument they have absolutely no knowledge of, but something they have at least the basic concepts of.
The theory behind Jack of All Trades is that a Bard dabbles in many fields. If you actually have comprehensive training in a skill or tool in 5e, then you have proficiency in it. Ergo, by definition lack of proficiency = lack of training, even if you have a feature that slightly improves your performance when the DM lets you roll on the activity in any case. Which brings up the biggest reason why interpreting JoAT as carte blanche to roll on every possible activity is a bad idea: in 5e the d20 has a lot more sway over success or failure on most ability checks than the static modifiers. If you’re going to let the Bard try for muscle power alongside the Barbarian on Athletic rolls, even though he’s got no prof and little 8-10 STR noodle arms, there’s still a significant chance he beats out the Barbarian, particularly on the high DC checks where luck has the most influence on the outcome. Jack of All Trades improves what a Bard can already do- which includes all the rolls any character might make without prof, but making it close to a blank check to seriously attempt ability rolls seems to push them beyond simply being versatile into being excessively dominant in the party. Even the skill monkeys need to stay in their lane to a certain degree on checks.
And it's completely valid if a DM wants to use JOAT as justification for allowing the check regardless of instrument. But another DM saying "don't bother rolling" even to a Bard with JOAT is not wrong to do so. The point is that it's the DM's choice.
Dominant at what, exactly? Playing various instruments? How and when, exactly, would this ever materially affect play balance?
Who, exactly, are they going to overshadow with this?
Even to the extent this applies to actual trades, they are not going to overshadow any actual artificer. On a roll here and there, perhaps, but not on average over time. And if a roll here and there is an issue, then the whole ability is an issue. This does not apply to weapons or armor. I cannot think of any class that, as a class, has vehicle proficiency. What is this 'lane' that it is important that they stay in?
It’s not about tools specifically, it’s about the underlying principle of what qualifies a character to make a roll for something that primarily involves technical knowledge or a similar background. Having a proficiency is the meta signifier of having that knowledge, ergo one who does not have proficiency is- by the quantifiable aspects of the game- lacking that foundation. That does not prevent someone from carrying out the action of say strumming the strings of an instrument, sticking some tools in a lock, attempting to glean details from tracks, or trying to parse through magical notation to understand some working, etc.; what it does mean is that the DM has a firm basis to say you can’t read and play a piece of sheet music for that instrument, pick the lock, glean detailed information from the tracks, or decipher the notation, because your character does not have an appropriate proficiency and thus doesn’t have the background needed, and JoAT still does not supersede the DM’s prerogative, nor do I think it should be a substitute for proficiency in making the judgement because then the character essentially has proficiency in everything. JoAT is meant to augment the rolls the DM chooses to greenlight, not enable all rolls.
And none of this means that you can only roll on proficiency; if you review the thread you’ll see numerous people including myself have said for an instrument having a similar prof gives a basis for making a straight roll with another. The point is that profs define your character’s capabilities, and so attempting to carry out a task that calls for a significant degree of skill means your character should have something on their sheet to indicate they have that knowledge or something adjacent, and while the argument exists that JoAT covers “adjacent” for all skills, imo that interprets it too broadly, and so it in itself does not seem to be a good basis for saying a Bard can, to return to the original question, “play” an instrument they don’t have a prof for when they are attempting to demonstrate competence with that instrument as opposed to simply producing noise or very simple melodies.
The context is not whether the Bard can operate a nuclear reactor (or magical equivalent), but whether they can use any instrument at half proficiency. Even if they do not know a similar instrument.
I agree that there should be limits, that at some point there should be a line beyond which is 'no, that you do not know.' However I just do not see that being instruments, in a heroic fantasy setting.
Obviously the line is subjective, but given the original question was so broad, a comprehensive answer needs to address what a character’s proficiencies are indicative of, and going by the section on ability checks in the DMG profs are indicative of more than just +X to the rolls.
That said, though, what does any given instrument actually grant a character more than the performance skill already does? Is there any substantial different in performance enhancement between a song accompanied by a lyre and one accompanies by a drum? Under the rules, there is no non-magical instrument that gives +X to performance and an instrument is not a requirement for a performance (IIRC, Xanathar's allows an instrument to give advantage to performance but that is regardless of the instrument).
Meanwhile, History skill has no requirement to specialize, even though history is a lot wider a topic than how to play any two instruments. Or Nature. Or Arcana... any knowledge skill, really.
A DM might say "You do not know that because it is a region you have not heard of until now," but the DM could similarly rule specifically for, say, bagpipes, on the basis that in their world that is a region specific instrument the bard would not have had knowledge of in advance.
And also a strict ruling on 'you need to be proficient to use a tool' means most people starve because only people with cooking tools proficiency (likely no one in the party and frankly likely most of the general population based on the background rules) do not have said proficiency.
I wonder how many DMs out there are actually denying their Bards success in musical challenges or use of magical items because of the wrong musical instrument choice proficiency choices. "Sorry, without a proficiency in tambourine, you can can not access the magic ship, the rest of the party is sleepy and there's no place they're going to."
I agree with Kotath's point about how instruments are hyper specific proficiencies while knowledges and weapons come in broad swaths of proficiency; and that disparity is weird. Thinking on this, I think I'd house rule something akin to proficiencies in categories of musical instruments (say voice, percussion, horns, small strings, large strings, keyed ... just spitballing here). Non Bard classes can take single instrument proficiencies, but the Bard gets say three categories of instrument, some colleges may grant more (Swords bard would not for example, actually quite a few wouldn't), and still use the jack of all trades to give Bards the ability to pick up unfamiliar instruments (or maybe limit that to the musical colleges), and allow for swapping out proficiencies at level up relegating former proficiencies to "out of practice" as I've suggested prior. I could picture layering on something like weapon specialization to instruments as an optional system for really hard core Bard games, but really, and this is out of curiosity, how often does the specific instrument a Bard uses in your games really matter (outside of setting realism or whateve
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
There’s no such thing as a skill check in 5e only ability checks. Anyone can potentially make any ability check if the DM calls for/allows it. If the DM decides a particular skill is relevant and you have proficiency in that skill then you can add your proficiency bonus. If the DM decides a particular tool is relevant and you have proficiency in that tool then you can add your proficiency bonus. If the DM decides a particular skill and/or tool is relevant and you have proficiency in either one then you can add your proficiency bonus but if you are proficient with both then you also have advantage on the roll. A instrument is just another tool like any other. Those are the rules.
Playing any instrument is just another Charisma check and if you are proficient with that particular type of instrument then you can add your proficiency bonus to the check. If the DM decides that Performance is relevant then even if you’re not proficient with that instrument you could still add your proficiency bonus to that Charisma check if you’re proficient with that skill. If the DM says Performance is relevant and you’re both proficient in that skill and proficient with that instrument then you would both add your proficiency bonus to the check and roll with advantage. Since most bards have proficiency in Performance and since most people would agree that playing an instrument is performing then any bard should likely be able to play any instrument and add their proficiency bonus to the check. (If you have Expertise in Performance then they would even be able to add double proficiency to the check too.)
All proficiency with an instrument does is give you advantage on the check or guarantee you that you can add you proficiency to the check even if your Performance proficiency wouldn’t count or if you don’t have it.
The only time you can’t make an ability check without specifically having proficiency in something is you can’t try to pick a lock unless you have proficiency with thieves’ tools. That’s the only exception.
The obvious point is that playing an instrument requires the instrument prof, not Performance prof. Otherwise why have the instrument profs in the first place?
I don't like the instrument proficiencies.
My bard tends to be an Orator: Storyteller, possibly some epic poetry, etc. I don't really like to play an instrument let alone 3 of them, and many in the drop menu I don't know what they are. I'd prefer it if I could exchange those instrument proficiencies for other tool proficiencies instead.
Correct me if I'm wrong about others in the thread being wrong, but a lack of proficiency wouldn't mean you can't read the sheet music. It means you don't know how to use the instrument to generate those notes. The notes themselves are still the same for any medium and a bard who can read music should be able to whistle or hum the tune of any piece of music regardless of the instrument it is meant for, no?
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I don’t mind that there are instrument proficiencies, I just don’t like that they’re obligatory for bards. I can’t carry a tune in a bucket for crying out loud, but I love playing as bards, so I also usually play them as actors, storytellers, and once even a poet too. Luckily the other main DM in my IRL group lets me swap instruments for languages, and in PbP I don’t actually have to sing or play anything at all and can just type that my character is singing and playing and done even have to pretend to pretend to actually do it. But it would be really nice if there were official alternatives to instruments instead too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
"Read" as in "know the names and kinds of notes", yes probably. "Read" as in "understand what that would actually sound like and be able to play", no. There are, in point of fact, differences in the notations for different instruments, some minor and some significant. A sheet for drums or another rhythm instrument, for instance, is going to look radically different from a sheet for a piano.
As for trading out 3 instrument profs for tool profs, doing that at a 1 to 1 is a bit of a stretch because tools are generally going to have more practical applications than instruments (which would be why Bards get 3 while no other core class gives more than 1 tool prof), so you're kinda trading up on a direct swap. Not game breaking or anything, but it is a consideration.
Instruments for languages is a better swap in terms of utility. Plus it's not like you actually personally should need to sing or play music for your character to use their profs in any case. At the end of the day "the magic of music" is the core theme of Bards, so I doubt the association will be going anywhere.
Ace, lemme guess, you’re a musician. Aren’t you?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That would be a very, very generous description, but I was in band for a while back in junior high and high school, so I know the basics.
I can, at best, play very simple tunes on a keyboard. I once was at least decent on a recorder but have never even tried any other woodwinds and am (and always have been) completely useless on a guitar. I am very rusty with sheet music but have a good idea of what those notes on paper would sound like when played. Most of chording is memory (for the basic knowledge) and muscle memory beyond that, but the basics are the same. And if you can master a guitar, I am fairly certain that you would also be good with a keyboard, even if not amazing. I mentioned earlier the difference between just drumming away on the nearest object (which pretty much everyone can do to some degree) and complex drumming with full kit.
I think one of the stumbling blocks in this discussion is the ability to reasonably try anything at all vs the ability to succeed at anything at all.
Let's start with voice, since it is not a listed instrument and is considered part of performance skill. Pretty much everyone can manage a passable Happy Birthday song. It is a very simple melody, short, with easy to remember words. That does not mean that everyone can manage the Habanera or Modern Major General. Not even on the equivalent of 'a good roll.'
Similarly with instruments, there is a big difference between picking one up and strumming out a very basic tune of some sort and playing some very specific, very complex piece. Similarly, playing solo vs playing in a band or symphony.
To me, Jack of All Trades is the ability to do the former. It does not mean you de facto know, let alone be able to competently perform every musical piece in existence, any more than History skill equating (proficient or not, or even with expertise) knowing literally everything, including things your character would have had no chance to learn yet.
The thread seems to have ballooned (to three pages and counting) because people are asserting house rules (which may well be logical and even good ones) as the rules if the game - or perhaps think they are the rules of the game. Given that the OP is clearly someone who is still learning the rules, we should be very carefully delineating the rules and "I would rule this at my table because I think it improves the game".
This is what the rules say:
If you do an ability check to play music with an instrument you have proficiency with, you can add your proficiency bonus. As Crawford said, unless it states otherwise, you don't have to have proficiency with a tool to attempt a task unless it says otherwise. It doesn't, so you don't need it.
Again, it could make complete sense and it could improve the game to rule it otherwise, but that's going into House Rules and should be clearly labelled as such in a thread.about helping someone understand the game.
As for the difference between Performance and an instrument...not much mechanically speaking, really, unless the DM contrives a situation to require it:
Unless the DM contrives a situation where your instrument is...instrumental...in the task, then Performance works just fine to do the same check, and even then it's quite easy to see Performance working anyway. Having proficiency in an instrument would mostly allow you to skip Performance and use that proficiency elsewhere.
Apologies for the lack of sources, I'm using my app and no time to mess about with the website.
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.
I generally agree, but there's also the part from the DMG about "By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility"; exactly what constitutes "a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances" is obviously up in the air, but the absence of a relevant proficiency is a commonly used one, ergo (as I've said several times) the answer to "can bards play an instrument without proficiency" based on what's actually printed in the books, personal experience, and observed experience is "it depends". There is no hard rule delineating what can and cannot be achieved without proficiency, but at the same time the DM has explicit fiat to say "it doesn't make sense for your character to be able to succeed at X activity because you don't have an applicable proficiency". Again, where exactly the line is drawn if the DM wants to draw one is subjective, but the DM fiat is there and no class feature- such as Jack of All Trades- intrinsically supersedes it.
Okay, that's addressing what's actually written in the books. As a brief personal take, I would err conservatively on stretching instrument use, because the fact that they made 10 different options for instruments in the PHB rather than just saying "strings, horns, percussion, etc." suggests to me that the intent was that a character be specialized rather than going wide on instruments. And if you really want to be an omnimusician, a Bard with the Entertainer background and the Skilled feat has 7 instrument profs.