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 figured you played, if not now then at some point. It’s pretty obvious that you’re quite passionate about music.
The thing is you’re looking at the subject of instrument proficiencies from an IRL perspective and are debating from a point of view aimed at realism and accuracy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, verily. However, much like whenever people do the same regarding weapons & armor; or the relative realism of HP, healing, and death saves as a representation of health & injury; or try to apply real world physics to the magical effects of spells; it‘s worth pointing out “D&D is not a simulation, it’s an abstraction.”
You are absolutely correct with a lot of, if not most of your points. I can wholly concede that because it’s true. You are right for the most part. Sure, I somewhat disagree with you a little bit on a couple of your lesser points, but not enough to debate them, and they aren’t really important to the discussion. Arguing about them would be at best less than helpful, likely somewhat tangential, and at worst no better than throwing up straw men, so I won’t bother.
What is important to the discussion though is the fact that, as I stated above, the proficiency system is not intended to be a true representation of reality, it’s just an abstraction of (innate talent + training and education + persistence and practice) = people good at stuff.
Consider taking the granularity you’re talking about for instrument proficiencies and applying it to other proficiencies too.
For example, Performance is like have to be split into dozens of different styles like: joke telling, comedic acting, dramatic acting, story telling, poetry recital, speech making, just to name a few. And those are just spoken word performances, and it’s not even a comprehensive list of those. Then there’s all the various types of dancing because ballroom is not the same as salsa is not the same as ballet, modern, interpretive, tap, jazz, hip-hop, and the list goes on and on and on and on….
Okay, I’ll admit that Performance is kind of a loaded one. Let me use an example with fewer variations such as, say, cook's utensils as our next example. Much simpler. Right? Except people all over the world work their whole lives simply to master a single culinary specialization such as becoming a master: saucier (sauté chef), rôtisseur (meats specialist essentially), entremétier (entrees, soups, pastas), tournant (generalist “swing chef”), garde manger (cold dishes including everything from salads to charcuterie), boucher (butcher), and pâtissier (pastry chef). That’s just an abridged list of only the main specialists in just the classic French culinary tradition. If we go more international we can start adding in pizzaiolo (pizza chef), gelataio (gelato chef), itamae (sushi chef), pit master (because there’s a huge difference between grilling and barbecue), and again, much like before, the list goes on…. *👉Some of those specialized French chef positions can (and often are) further subdivided into even more specialized types of chefs like the: poissonnier, grillardin, friturier, potager, légumier, charcutier, sorbetière, and that’s just to name a few.
It would be insane trying to make every “skill/tool proficiency” anything even remotely close to accurate in D&D. So they didn’t. Instead they abstracted things. That’s why I have to agree with Potato's essential point. It's still at its core just a Charisma check, and depending on what all you're proficient with is how you determine whether or not you get to apply your PB (half, full, or double depending on features) and whether or not you have advantage.
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.
It’s a game about exploring dangerous places, fighting dangerous monsters, interacting with dangerous (and not so dangerous) people, and getting fat stacks and cred in the process. If they make it hard just to play the bongos or whatever, nobody would play the game.
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.
If you have proficiency in both Performance and the specific instrument in question, then you wouldn’t skip either proficiency, but you would instead benefit from both. No, the PB wouldn’t stack, but RAW from Xanathar’s Guide says they do complement each other. It states:
Skills. Every tool potentially provides advantage on a check when used in conjunction with certain skills, provided a character is proficient with the tool and the skill. As DM, you can allow a character to make a check using the indicated skill with advantage. Paragraphs that begin with skill names discuss these possibilities. In each of these paragraphs, the benefits apply only to someone who has proficiency with the tool, not someone who simply owns it.
With respect to skills, the system is mildly abstract in terms of what a tool proficiency represents; essentially, it assumes that a character who has proficiency with a tool also has learned about facets of the trade or profession that are not necessarily associated with the use of the tool.
In addition, you can consider giving a character extra information or an added benefit on a skill check. The text provides some examples and ideas when this opportunity is relevant.
Proficiency with a musical instrument indicates you are familiar with the techniques used to play it. You also have knowledge of some songs commonly performed with that instrument.
History. Your expertise aids you in recalling lore related to your instrument.
Performance. Your ability to put on a good show is improved when you incorporate an instrument into your act.
True, those rules about skills and tools working together are optional rules, but they’re still RAW. So proficiency with Performance is technically all that’s needed to play any instrument and add your proficiency bonus to your Charisma check when playing, but being proficient with the instrument would equally work, and being proficient with both means you have advantage too.
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 figured you played, if not now then at some point. It’s pretty obvious that you’re quite passionate about music.
I'm not though. I'm really, really not. I was nothing special in band and honestly looking back I feel like I should have just dropped out after a few years.
And regarding the granularity, I'm not the one who's applying it. They very specifically broke out instruments into close to a dozen options just in the PHB (I think there's a few more setting-specific ones in some other books); ergo it seems reasonable to conclude they want that degree of granularity to apply in this case. And, again, the thrust of my point is just that between the RAW granularity of instrument profs and DM adjudication of what activities a character can succeed at, there is no basis to confidently say "yes, a Bard can pick up a random instrument and the only difference in outcome will be slightly lower odds of passing the roll". One DM might go for it, another DM might raise the DC, and a third might just say "no matter how well you roll, you'll still clearly sound like an amateur with that instrument". I have repeatedly said this is not some binary "can you equip the instrument" barrier, just that the presence or absence of proficiency is indicated both in certain parts of the material and by how many (probably the majority) of tables play to have more influence on the outcome than just the numerical advantage of the PB. That is the average trend, individual cases will of course vary.
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.
But an ability check with an instrument isn't merely "do you know {instrument}." Of course Bards likely know every instrument, they are more than mere minstrels and troubadours after all.
Rather, an ability check with an instrument is "I am trying to use {instrument} to accomplish {thing.}" And whether you can do that with an instrument you're not specifically proficient with depends entirely on what {thing} is. Which brings me back to my very first post in this thread:
As for "can you play without being proficient" - Sure you can, just like you could in real life, but it likely wouldn't be very good. As with all ability checks, the result depends on what you're trying to accomplish and whether or not the DM calls for a roll (ideally, with a meaningful consequence for failure if they do.)
So if, say, I don't know how to play the harp, and an angry dragon is about to attack us because we're trespassing in its lair but I spot its favorite harp next to me and decide to play it a soothing song - the DM is well within their rights to say "your efforts to calm it down are futile because you aren't proficient with the harp, don't bother rolling." Or they might say "you're not great with the harp, but your Jack of All Trades means you know a chord or two. You have its attention, go ahead and roll." Or they might say "Your Jack of All Trades means you're good enough to calm it down, no need to roll. It listens to you play and seems to relax." The point of 5e is that none of these approaches is wrong, even though they're drastically different from one another in play.
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.
But an ability check with an instrument isn't merely "do you know {instrument}." Of course Bards likely know every instrument, they are more than mere minstrels and troubadours after all.
Rather, an ability check with an instrument is "I am trying to use {instrument} to accomplish {thing.}" And whether you can do that with an instrument you're not specifically proficient with depends entirely on what {thing} is. Which brings me back to my very first post in this thread:
As for "can you play without being proficient" - Sure you can, just like you could in real life, but it likely wouldn't be very good. As with all ability checks, the result depends on what you're trying to accomplish and whether or not the DM calls for a roll (ideally, with a meaningful consequence for failure if they do.)
So if, say, I don't know how to play the harp, and an angry dragon is about to attack us because we're trespassing in its lair but I spot its favorite harp next to me and decide to play it a soothing song - the DM is well within their rights to say "your efforts to calm it down are futile because you aren't proficient with the harp, don't bother rolling." Or they might say "you're not great with the harp, but your Jack of All Trades means you know a chord or two. You have its attention, go ahead and roll." Or they might say "Your Jack of All Trades means you're good enough to calm it down, no need to roll. It listens to you play and seems to relax." The point of 5e is that none of these approaches is wrong, even though they're drastically different from one another in play.
Or, the bard, knowing the basics of how stringed instruments function, plucks a string and hearing the tone has reason to assume the rest of the strings are scaled similarly to any other stringed instrument and go from there. Now if the harp was out of tune, that would be a complication but one that would be there fully proficient or not.
If the plot is based around the harp being used to calm the dragon, then presumably the DM is ok with that actually working. If it is just 'an attempt to calm the dragon with music,' then the bard could simply sing, without touching the harp at all. Or use one of the three they are trained in formally, which they presumably have with them, again not touching the harp at all.
Again, not seeing what the issue here is. In this scenario, it only matters with respect to a very specific combination of events, and one that DM presumably deliberately placed and hopefully did not place there just to laugh at the bard for the bard not having learned how to play the harp.
Meanwhile, if the effort has a specific DC to match, half proficiency is going to have a harder time getting there than full proficiency. The fully proficient bard will still be better at that test than the JoT bard.
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 figured you played, if not now then at some point. It’s pretty obvious that you’re quite passionate about music.
I'm not though. I'm really, really not. I was nothing special in band and honestly looking back I feel like I should have just dropped out after a few years.
And regarding the granularity, I'm not the one who's applying it. They very specifically broke out instruments into close to a dozen options just in the PHB (I think there's a few more setting-specific ones in some other books); ergo it seems reasonable to conclude they want that degree of granularity to apply in this case. And, again, the thrust of my point is just that between the RAW granularity of instrument profs and DM adjudication of what activities a character can succeed at, there is no basis to confidently say "yes, a Bard can pick up a random instrument and the only difference in outcome will be slightly lower odds of passing the roll". One DM might go for it, another DM might raise the DC, and a third might just say "no matter how well you roll, you'll still clearly sound like an amateur with that instrument". I have repeatedly said this is not some binary "can you equip the instrument" barrier, just that the presence or absence of proficiency is indicated both in certain parts of the material and by how many (probably the majority) of tables play to have more influence on the outcome than just the numerical advantage of the PB. That is the average trend, individual cases will of course vary.
Okay, first I must admit in the name of good faith that I have not read every comment in the thread. However from the comments I have read, I don’t remember seeing anyone dispute any of that. I’ve seen people state whether or not you can or can’t claim proficiency, advantage, or both depending on whether or not your character has proficiency in Performance, the specific instrument, or both. But that’s it. I don’t remember seeing anyone dispute that the DM can choose the DC they feel most appropriate including “too high to succeed.” And if anyone is disputing the DM’s right to set what they believe is the appropriate DC for a check then I’ll gladly provide the link to the relevant section of the rules that prove they have been misinformed.
Just to be absolutely clear:
RAW, to play an instrument requires proficiency (or Expertise) with that instrument, some degree of proficiency (½×, 1×, 2×) in Performance, or both proficiencies. These proficiencies, or their combination, dictate whether or not the PC can claim the benefits of adding some, all, or double their PB to their roll when making the check, rolling the check with advantage, or both.
RAW, the DM can set any DC they think appropriate to any check at any time, and adjust it depending on circumstances.
If anyone disputes those two facts, they are sadly misinformed.
Or, the bard, knowing the basics of how stringed instruments function, plucks a string and hearing the tone has reason to assume the rest of the strings are scaled similarly to any other stringed instrument and go from there. Now if the harp was out of tune, that would be a complication but one that would be there fully proficient or not.
If the plot is based around the harp being used to calm the dragon, then presumably the DM is ok with that actually working. If it is just 'an attempt to calm the dragon with music,' then the bard could simply sing, without touching the harp at all. Or use one of the three they are trained in formally, which they presumably have with them, again not touching the harp at all.
Again, not seeing what the issue here is. In this scenario, it only matters with respect to a very specific combination of events, and one that DM presumably deliberately placed and hopefully did not place there just to laugh at the bard for the bard not having learned how to play the harp.
Meanwhile, if the effort has a specific DC to match, half proficiency is going to have a harder time getting there than full proficiency. The fully proficient bard will still be better at that test than the JoT bard.
1) I'm not sure why you're still trying to argue with me when I literally said some DMs can allow it to work and be completely within their rights/the rules.
2) "The bard can simply sing" could indeed work - or it could not, if that specific harp in the dragon's hoard is what it cares about hearing and you don't know how to play it.
3) "The bard knows the basics of stringed instruments" is incredibly reductive. Knowing how to play the harp might give you a good foundation to pick up guitar, but being good at one doesn't automatically make you good at the other.
In short, a DM allowing this and a DM disallowing it are both in the right.
Or, the bard, knowing the basics of how stringed instruments function, plucks a string and hearing the tone has reason to assume the rest of the strings are scaled similarly to any other stringed instrument and go from there. Now if the harp was out of tune, that would be a complication but one that would be there fully proficient or not.
If the plot is based around the harp being used to calm the dragon, then presumably the DM is ok with that actually working. If it is just 'an attempt to calm the dragon with music,' then the bard could simply sing, without touching the harp at all. Or use one of the three they are trained in formally, which they presumably have with them, again not touching the harp at all.
Again, not seeing what the issue here is. In this scenario, it only matters with respect to a very specific combination of events, and one that DM presumably deliberately placed and hopefully did not place there just to laugh at the bard for the bard not having learned how to play the harp.
Meanwhile, if the effort has a specific DC to match, half proficiency is going to have a harder time getting there than full proficiency. The fully proficient bard will still be better at that test than the JoT bard.
1) I'm not sure why you're still trying to argue with me when I literally said some DMs can allow it to work and be completely within their rights/the rules.
2) "The bard can simply sing" could indeed work - or it could not, if that specific harp in the dragon's hoard is what it cares about hearing and you don't know how to play it.
3) "The bard knows the basics of stringed instruments" is incredibly reductive. Knowing how to play the harp might give you a good foundation to pick up guitar, but being good at one doesn't automatically make you good at the other.
In short, a DM allowing this and a DM disallowing it are both in the right.
1) (and your bottom line) "Any given DM....." is a red herring, since that is true of everything in the game. This is a discussion about how and why a DM might decide either way.
2) You are not responding to how specific that 'dragon harp' scenario is. What, exactly, is the play balance point being made there? Is it specifically a harp, just so the DM can taunt the bard's player by saying "Ha ha, you didn't choose to learn the harp!" ?
3) This comes back to the fact that tool complexity is not really considered in the rules, at least not formally. Guitars are considered a more complex instrument than harps. They are certainly the more modern instrument. Are you saying that, if the bard knew how to play guitars, instead, they could not quickly figure out how to play the harp? Or the lute, cittern, mandolin or any of the other 'proto-guitars?' Both harps and guitars. I can see the argument for them not even knowing what a piano is, if they have never seen one and they were very rare even as a concept pre-renaissance, but that is back to the 'might not know about location specific things, especially obscure facts' consideration, which I conceded.
The guitar is an example of this too, being not just the more complex instrument, but also the later developed and thus presumably (depending on approximate tech equivalent setting) more rare instrument. However if characters are limited to instruments they are specifically trained in, then it is back to the 'the vast majority have to eat raw food' issue (a point which also seems to be not yet rebutted in this discussion). It implies that one cannot even play a tambourine, at all, without formal training. Or a triangle. Or even just tap their fingers or stamp their feet in time with music (which are the simplest forms of drumming). This is being argued as being equivalent to lock picking (which is the only other task in game that I can think of where it is specifically said you need tool proficiency to even attempt it). Moreover, it is being argued equivalent in all cases.
You can add the Instrument to the list of skills. Then apply "not proficient", half Proficient", "full Proficient" or "Expert depending on the level of training. You can even set a penalty by using a negative number in the Override or Misc Bonus. This can be used for new weapons and kits too.
Anyone can play a musical instrument assuming they have the basic anatomical requirements to operate it (IE a double arm amputee can't operate a pipe organ).
The question is whether they can actually do it well or if they sound like a 2 year old with a tamborine.
2) You are not responding to how specific that 'dragon harp' scenario is. What, exactly, is the play balance point being made there? Is it specifically a harp, just so the DM can taunt the bard's player by saying "Ha ha, you didn't choose to learn the harp!" ?
If you view "this specific solution/approach won't work for your character because you didn't build it to utilize that solution, try something else" as a "taunt" then I'm not sure what to tell you. It sounds like your games have more assumed hostility than I can or care to identify with.
2) You are not responding to how specific that 'dragon harp' scenario is. What, exactly, is the play balance point being made there? Is it specifically a harp, just so the DM can taunt the bard's player by saying "Ha ha, you didn't choose to learn the harp!" ?
If you view "this specific solution/approach won't work for your character because you didn't build it to utilize that solution, try something else" as a "taunt" then I'm not sure what to tell you. It sounds like your games have more assumed hostility than I can or care to identify with.
3) This comes back to the fact that tool complexity is not really considered in the rules, at least not formally.
Right, because it doesn't have to be. See #1.
When the solution is that specific, it is sort of like "Well you have a tougher fight because none of your character names starts with an 'A.'" Why would any DM write their adventure that way?
2) You are not responding to how specific that 'dragon harp' scenario is. What, exactly, is the play balance point being made there? Is it specifically a harp, just so the DM can taunt the bard's player by saying "Ha ha, you didn't choose to learn the harp!" ?
If you view "this specific solution/approach won't work for your character because you didn't build it to utilize that solution, try something else" as a "taunt" then I'm not sure what to tell you. It sounds like your games have more assumed hostility than I can or care to identify with.
3) This comes back to the fact that tool complexity is not really considered in the rules, at least not formally.
Right, because it doesn't have to be. See #1.
When the solution is that specific, it is sort of like "Well you have a tougher fight because none of your character names starts with an 'A.'" Why would any DM write their adventure that way?
There's a notable difference between "what letters are in a character's name" and "which of an array of mechanical choices specific to your class/build did you select". And it's rather a part of TTRPG's that the latter such choices do have some impact on your ability to interact with the story, which includes potentially missing out on certain paths because you made a different choice. And unless the party's explicit objective as handed down by the DM is "use the harp to calm down the dragon", then it's entirely valid for the theoretical option to exist while the party lacks someone who can take it. IMO it makes the setting feel more "real" if you encounter theoretical alternatives outside the party's capabilities rather than everything being custom-tailored around the party.
There's a notable difference between "what letters are in a character's name" and "which of an array of mechanical choices specific to your class/build did you select". And it's rather a part of TTRPG's that the latter such choices do have some impact on your ability to interact with the story, which includes potentially missing out on certain paths because you made a different choice. And unless the party's explicit objective as handed down by the DM is "use the harp to calm down the dragon", then it's entirely valid for the theoretical option to exist while the party lacks someone who can take it. IMO it makes the setting feel more "real" if you encounter theoretical alternatives outside the party's capabilities rather than everything being custom-tailored around the party.
Is there? What is the mechanical difference, in the rules, between a lute and a cittern or mandolin? Heck, what is the mechanical difference, in the rules, between a full pipe organ with (literally) all the stops and a simple tambourine?
In this scenario, it is presented as only the harp is useful for calming the dragon, since it is the dragon's favorite. If other instruments would work, then presumably they would work with higher DC's, in which case the exact skill bonus applied to use of the harp is exactly akin to using a lesser instrument instead of the preferred.
More 'real' ignores the fact that the DM, presumably knowing what instruments the party are trained in, also decides which instrument the dragon's favorite is. (Or for that matter, that it is a dragon)
There's a notable difference between "what letters are in a character's name" and "which of an array of mechanical choices specific to your class/build did you select". And it's rather a part of TTRPG's that the latter such choices do have some impact on your ability to interact with the story, which includes potentially missing out on certain paths because you made a different choice. And unless the party's explicit objective as handed down by the DM is "use the harp to calm down the dragon", then it's entirely valid for the theoretical option to exist while the party lacks someone who can take it. IMO it makes the setting feel more "real" if you encounter theoretical alternatives outside the party's capabilities rather than everything being custom-tailored around the party.
Is there? What is the mechanical difference, in the rules, between a lute and a cittern or mandolin? Heck, what is the mechanical difference, in the rules, between a full pipe organ with (literally) all the stops and a simple tambourine?
Well, by the rules there's no proficiency for any of those besides the lute in the PHB, so mechanically speaking only one is an actual universally valid and supported choice by RAW. And, getting away from specious segues into actually relevant points, the objective fact is that when you're presented with "choose X from a pool of Y" options, then by definition that means you are choosing aspects of the game you will not be good at. Making up a name carries none of that baggage, either explicitly or implicitly.
In this scenario, it is presented as only the harp is useful for calming the dragon, since it is the dragon's favorite. If other instruments would work, then presumably they would work with higher DC's, in which case the exact skill bonus applied to use of the harp is exactly akin to using a lesser instrument instead of the preferred.
More 'real' ignores the fact that the DM, presumably knowing what instruments the party are trained in, also decides which instrument the dragon's favorite is. (Or for that matter, that it is a dragon)
So NPCs can or should only have interests in a game that relate to the PC's features? The DM decided the dragon likes harps for whatever reason; maybe it's based on something they read in a story or maybe the DM just likes harps. Also, there's a limit to taking a snapshot theoretical and spinning it out into entire breadth of what such a scenario would be in play. All that is actually happening here is "Can I calm the dragon with music?" "Sure, they enjoy harp music but have high standards; do you have harp proficiency?" being presented as one possible DM response to a "can I try this" from the player. No one but you is suggesting that the only path to calming the dragon would be playing the harp, just that not having proficiency with the instrument is a reasonable basis for saying one specific course of action will not succeed.
There's a notable difference between "what letters are in a character's name" and "which of an array of mechanical choices specific to your class/build did you select". And it's rather a part of TTRPG's that the latter such choices do have some impact on your ability to interact with the story, which includes potentially missing out on certain paths because you made a different choice. And unless the party's explicit objective as handed down by the DM is "use the harp to calm down the dragon", then it's entirely valid for the theoretical option to exist while the party lacks someone who can take it. IMO it makes the setting feel more "real" if you encounter theoretical alternatives outside the party's capabilities rather than everything being custom-tailored around the party.
Is there? What is the mechanical difference, in the rules, between a lute and a cittern or mandolin? Heck, what is the mechanical difference, in the rules, between a full pipe organ with (literally) all the stops and a simple tambourine?
Well, by the rules there's no proficiency for any of those besides the lute in the PHB, so mechanically speaking only one is an actual universally valid and supported choice by RAW. And, getting away from specious segues into actually relevant points, the objective fact is that when you're presented with "choose X from a pool of Y" options, then by definition that means you are choosing aspects of the game you will not be good at. Making up a name carries none of that baggage, either explicitly or implicitly.
In this scenario, it is presented as only the harp is useful for calming the dragon, since it is the dragon's favorite. If other instruments would work, then presumably they would work with higher DC's, in which case the exact skill bonus applied to use of the harp is exactly akin to using a lesser instrument instead of the preferred.
More 'real' ignores the fact that the DM, presumably knowing what instruments the party are trained in, also decides which instrument the dragon's favorite is. (Or for that matter, that it is a dragon)
So NPCs can or should only have interests in a game that relate to the PC's features? The DM decided the dragon likes harps for whatever reason; maybe it's based on something they read in a story or maybe the DM just likes harps. Also, there's a limit to taking a snapshot theoretical and spinning it out into entire breadth of what such a scenario would be in play. All that is actually happening here is "Can I calm the dragon with music?" "Sure, they enjoy harp music but have high standards; do you have harp proficiency?" being presented as one possible DM response to a "can I try this" from the player. No one but you is suggesting that the only path to calming the dragon would be playing the harp, just that not having proficiency with the instrument is a reasonable basis for saying one specific course of action will not succeed.
If you want to get into 'the options listed in the PHB,' then harps are not listed at all, yet are included in the 'Instruments of the Bards' by way of the Anstruth Harp. Cittern and Mandolin are also in that list. (And yes, they have penalties for those who try to play them unattuned, but if you make the wisdom save, you can, under their descriptions, play them).
Yes, the DM can write adventures for some other party entirely, but ... why? Presumably the DM does know what instruments the party bard is proficient in and if not, why not? These are arbitrary barriers chosen by the DM. What, exactly, is the narrative purpose here? Choices matter? When there was no forseeable way to predict this choice ever mattering?
If there are other options to calm the dragon, then, again, why the harp, specifically, of instrument choices, other than to perhaps put the bard who loves playing up their ability to calm with their pan flute (for an example of another typically calming instrument) in 'their place?' (or any other instrument other than the (as you pointed out, not even in the PH to choose) harp?). Why this line in the sand?
The argument seems to be that, otherwise, the bard would be getting away with something, that some choice they made (merely by virtue of choosing three specific instruments) is supposed to be a really important choice, so important that Jack of All Trades does not mitigate situations when their choice was not ideal. However, still trying to understand how that is being held equivalent to, say, spell choices, given there is a clear and obvious difference in utility between spells. And, moreover, that spells are indeed much more specific things than skills, or any other tool category. Carpentry tool skill does not differentiate between skill with hammer, skill with chisel and skill with saw, for example. Cooking tool skill does not differentiate between roasting, frying or baking, or even preparing cold sandwiches.
The dragon soothing harp thing reminded me, I don't know if there's similar scenes in other published adventures, but to compare the debate here to how WotC has actually put musical instruments into practice, so to speak, in published adventures, I remembered this in Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus:
The balcony looks out over area H3. Any character who sits down at the pipe organ can feel that it is enchanted with powerful magic, and a detect magic spell reveals an aura of enchantment magic around it.
A character who plays the organ and succeeds on a DC 15 Charisma (Performance) check can play a powerful song that resonates throughout the cathedral. This song grants a bonus die, a d8, to every other player character who can hear it. A character can only receive this benefit only once, and the d8 can be added to one attack roll, ability check, or saving throw made by the character in the next 24 hours.
A 15 charisma check to play a pipe organ with no mention of a need for proficiency I think gives a sense of the role instrument proficiency is intended have in play. I mean, if you're playing a "whoops, all bards!" game, yes, having a more carefully tuned attention to who can play what would be key; but it doesn't seem like the game's designers really want music to be that significant a stumbling block, but rather something players and DMs can enjoy noodling with.
I figured you played, if not now then at some point. It’s pretty obvious that you’re quite passionate about music.
The thing is you’re looking at the subject of instrument proficiencies from an IRL perspective and are debating from a point of view aimed at realism and accuracy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, verily. However, much like whenever people do the same regarding weapons & armor; or the relative realism of HP, healing, and death saves as a representation of health & injury; or try to apply real world physics to the magical effects of spells; it‘s worth pointing out “D&D is not a simulation, it’s an abstraction.”
You are absolutely correct with a lot of, if not most of your points. I can wholly concede that because it’s true. You are right for the most part. Sure, I somewhat disagree with you a little bit on a couple of your lesser points, but not enough to debate them, and they aren’t really important to the discussion. Arguing about them would be at best less than helpful, likely somewhat tangential, and at worst no better than throwing up straw men, so I won’t bother.
What is important to the discussion though is the fact that, as I stated above, the proficiency system is not intended to be a true representation of reality, it’s just an abstraction of (innate talent + training and education + persistence and practice) = people good at stuff.
Consider taking the granularity you’re talking about for instrument proficiencies and applying it to other proficiencies too.
For example, Performance is like have to be split into dozens of different styles like: joke telling, comedic acting, dramatic acting, story telling, poetry recital, speech making, just to name a few. And those are just spoken word performances, and it’s not even a comprehensive list of those. Then there’s all the various types of dancing because ballroom is not the same as salsa is not the same as ballet, modern, interpretive, tap, jazz, hip-hop, and the list goes on and on and on and on….
Okay, I’ll admit that Performance is kind of a loaded one. Let me use an example with fewer variations such as, say, cook's utensils as our next example. Much simpler. Right? Except people all over the world work their whole lives simply to master a single culinary specialization such as becoming a master: saucier (sauté chef), rôtisseur (meats specialist essentially), entremétier (entrees, soups, pastas), tournant (generalist “swing chef”), garde manger (cold dishes including everything from salads to charcuterie), boucher (butcher), and pâtissier (pastry chef). That’s just an abridged list of only the main specialists in just the classic French culinary tradition. If we go more international we can start adding in pizzaiolo (pizza chef), gelataio (gelato chef), itamae (sushi chef), pit master (because there’s a huge difference between grilling and barbecue), and again, much like before, the list goes on….
*👉Some of those specialized French chef positions can (and often are) further subdivided into even more specialized types of chefs like the: poissonnier, grillardin, friturier, potager, légumier, charcutier, sorbetière, and that’s just to name a few.
It would be insane trying to make every “skill/tool proficiency” anything even remotely close to accurate in D&D. So they didn’t. Instead they abstracted things. That’s why I have to agree with Potato's essential point. It's still at its core just a Charisma check, and depending on what all you're proficient with is how you determine whether or not you get to apply your PB (half, full, or double depending on features) and whether or not you have advantage.
It’s a game about exploring dangerous places, fighting dangerous monsters, interacting with dangerous (and not so dangerous) people, and getting fat stacks and cred in the process. If they make it hard just to play the bongos or whatever, nobody would play the game.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If you have proficiency in both Performance and the specific instrument in question, then you wouldn’t skip either proficiency, but you would instead benefit from both. No, the PB wouldn’t stack, but RAW from Xanathar’s Guide says they do complement each other. It states:
True, those rules about skills and tools working together are optional rules, but they’re still RAW. So proficiency with Performance is technically all that’s needed to play any instrument and add your proficiency bonus to your Charisma check when playing, but being proficient with the instrument would equally work, and being proficient with both means you have advantage too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm not though. I'm really, really not. I was nothing special in band and honestly looking back I feel like I should have just dropped out after a few years.
And regarding the granularity, I'm not the one who's applying it. They very specifically broke out instruments into close to a dozen options just in the PHB (I think there's a few more setting-specific ones in some other books); ergo it seems reasonable to conclude they want that degree of granularity to apply in this case. And, again, the thrust of my point is just that between the RAW granularity of instrument profs and DM adjudication of what activities a character can succeed at, there is no basis to confidently say "yes, a Bard can pick up a random instrument and the only difference in outcome will be slightly lower odds of passing the roll". One DM might go for it, another DM might raise the DC, and a third might just say "no matter how well you roll, you'll still clearly sound like an amateur with that instrument". I have repeatedly said this is not some binary "can you equip the instrument" barrier, just that the presence or absence of proficiency is indicated both in certain parts of the material and by how many (probably the majority) of tables play to have more influence on the outcome than just the numerical advantage of the PB. That is the average trend, individual cases will of course vary.
But an ability check with an instrument isn't merely "do you know {instrument}." Of course Bards likely know every instrument, they are more than mere minstrels and troubadours after all.
Rather, an ability check with an instrument is "I am trying to use {instrument} to accomplish {thing.}" And whether you can do that with an instrument you're not specifically proficient with depends entirely on what {thing} is. Which brings me back to my very first post in this thread:
So if, say, I don't know how to play the harp, and an angry dragon is about to attack us because we're trespassing in its lair but I spot its favorite harp next to me and decide to play it a soothing song - the DM is well within their rights to say "your efforts to calm it down are futile because you aren't proficient with the harp, don't bother rolling." Or they might say "you're not great with the harp, but your Jack of All Trades means you know a chord or two. You have its attention, go ahead and roll." Or they might say "Your Jack of All Trades means you're good enough to calm it down, no need to roll. It listens to you play and seems to relax." The point of 5e is that none of these approaches is wrong, even though they're drastically different from one another in play.
Or, the bard, knowing the basics of how stringed instruments function, plucks a string and hearing the tone has reason to assume the rest of the strings are scaled similarly to any other stringed instrument and go from there. Now if the harp was out of tune, that would be a complication but one that would be there fully proficient or not.
If the plot is based around the harp being used to calm the dragon, then presumably the DM is ok with that actually working. If it is just 'an attempt to calm the dragon with music,' then the bard could simply sing, without touching the harp at all. Or use one of the three they are trained in formally, which they presumably have with them, again not touching the harp at all.
Again, not seeing what the issue here is. In this scenario, it only matters with respect to a very specific combination of events, and one that DM presumably deliberately placed and hopefully did not place there just to laugh at the bard for the bard not having learned how to play the harp.
Meanwhile, if the effort has a specific DC to match, half proficiency is going to have a harder time getting there than full proficiency. The fully proficient bard will still be better at that test than the JoT bard.
Okay, first I must admit in the name of good faith that I have not read every comment in the thread. However from the comments I have read, I don’t remember seeing anyone dispute any of that. I’ve seen people state whether or not you can or can’t claim proficiency, advantage, or both depending on whether or not your character has proficiency in Performance, the specific instrument, or both. But that’s it. I don’t remember seeing anyone dispute that the DM can choose the DC they feel most appropriate including “too high to succeed.” And if anyone is disputing the DM’s right to set what they believe is the appropriate DC for a check then I’ll gladly provide the link to the relevant section of the rules that prove they have been misinformed.
Just to be absolutely clear:
If anyone disputes those two facts, they are sadly misinformed.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
1) I'm not sure why you're still trying to argue with me when I literally said some DMs can allow it to work and be completely within their rights/the rules.
2) "The bard can simply sing" could indeed work - or it could not, if that specific harp in the dragon's hoard is what it cares about hearing and you don't know how to play it.
3) "The bard knows the basics of stringed instruments" is incredibly reductive. Knowing how to play the harp might give you a good foundation to pick up guitar, but being good at one doesn't automatically make you good at the other.
In short, a DM allowing this and a DM disallowing it are both in the right.
1) (and your bottom line) "Any given DM....." is a red herring, since that is true of everything in the game. This is a discussion about how and why a DM might decide either way.
2) You are not responding to how specific that 'dragon harp' scenario is. What, exactly, is the play balance point being made there? Is it specifically a harp, just so the DM can taunt the bard's player by saying "Ha ha, you didn't choose to learn the harp!" ?
3) This comes back to the fact that tool complexity is not really considered in the rules, at least not formally. Guitars are considered a more complex instrument than harps. They are certainly the more modern instrument. Are you saying that, if the bard knew how to play guitars, instead, they could not quickly figure out how to play the harp? Or the lute, cittern, mandolin or any of the other 'proto-guitars?' Both harps and guitars. I can see the argument for them not even knowing what a piano is, if they have never seen one and they were very rare even as a concept pre-renaissance, but that is back to the 'might not know about location specific things, especially obscure facts' consideration, which I conceded.
The guitar is an example of this too, being not just the more complex instrument, but also the later developed and thus presumably (depending on approximate tech equivalent setting) more rare instrument. However if characters are limited to instruments they are specifically trained in, then it is back to the 'the vast majority have to eat raw food' issue (a point which also seems to be not yet rebutted in this discussion). It implies that one cannot even play a tambourine, at all, without formal training. Or a triangle. Or even just tap their fingers or stamp their feet in time with music (which are the simplest forms of drumming). This is being argued as being equivalent to lock picking (which is the only other task in game that I can think of where it is specifically said you need tool proficiency to even attempt it). Moreover, it is being argued equivalent in all cases.
You can add the Instrument to the list of skills. Then apply "not proficient", half Proficient", "full Proficient" or "Expert depending on the level of training. You can even set a penalty by using a negative number in the Override or Misc Bonus. This can be used for new weapons and kits too.
edit: typo
playing since 1986
Anyone can play a musical instrument assuming they have the basic anatomical requirements to operate it (IE a double arm amputee can't operate a pipe organ).
The question is whether they can actually do it well or if they sound like a 2 year old with a tamborine.
They don't need a hard justification. If you want/need to have one, you're allowed, if another doesn't, they're also allowed.
If you view "this specific solution/approach won't work for your character because you didn't build it to utilize that solution, try something else" as a "taunt" then I'm not sure what to tell you. It sounds like your games have more assumed hostility than I can or care to identify with.
Right, because it doesn't have to be. See #1.
When the solution is that specific, it is sort of like "Well you have a tougher fight because none of your character names starts with an 'A.'" Why would any DM write their adventure that way?
There's a notable difference between "what letters are in a character's name" and "which of an array of mechanical choices specific to your class/build did you select". And it's rather a part of TTRPG's that the latter such choices do have some impact on your ability to interact with the story, which includes potentially missing out on certain paths because you made a different choice. And unless the party's explicit objective as handed down by the DM is "use the harp to calm down the dragon", then it's entirely valid for the theoretical option to exist while the party lacks someone who can take it. IMO it makes the setting feel more "real" if you encounter theoretical alternatives outside the party's capabilities rather than everything being custom-tailored around the party.
Is there? What is the mechanical difference, in the rules, between a lute and a cittern or mandolin? Heck, what is the mechanical difference, in the rules, between a full pipe organ with (literally) all the stops and a simple tambourine?
In this scenario, it is presented as only the harp is useful for calming the dragon, since it is the dragon's favorite. If other instruments would work, then presumably they would work with higher DC's, in which case the exact skill bonus applied to use of the harp is exactly akin to using a lesser instrument instead of the preferred.
More 'real' ignores the fact that the DM, presumably knowing what instruments the party are trained in, also decides which instrument the dragon's favorite is. (Or for that matter, that it is a dragon)
Well, by the rules there's no proficiency for any of those besides the lute in the PHB, so mechanically speaking only one is an actual universally valid and supported choice by RAW. And, getting away from specious segues into actually relevant points, the objective fact is that when you're presented with "choose X from a pool of Y" options, then by definition that means you are choosing aspects of the game you will not be good at. Making up a name carries none of that baggage, either explicitly or implicitly.
So NPCs can or should only have interests in a game that relate to the PC's features? The DM decided the dragon likes harps for whatever reason; maybe it's based on something they read in a story or maybe the DM just likes harps. Also, there's a limit to taking a snapshot theoretical and spinning it out into entire breadth of what such a scenario would be in play. All that is actually happening here is "Can I calm the dragon with music?" "Sure, they enjoy harp music but have high standards; do you have harp proficiency?" being presented as one possible DM response to a "can I try this" from the player. No one but you is suggesting that the only path to calming the dragon would be playing the harp, just that not having proficiency with the instrument is a reasonable basis for saying one specific course of action will not succeed.
If you want to get into 'the options listed in the PHB,' then harps are not listed at all, yet are included in the 'Instruments of the Bards' by way of the Anstruth Harp. Cittern and Mandolin are also in that list. (And yes, they have penalties for those who try to play them unattuned, but if you make the wisdom save, you can, under their descriptions, play them).
Yes, the DM can write adventures for some other party entirely, but ... why? Presumably the DM does know what instruments the party bard is proficient in and if not, why not? These are arbitrary barriers chosen by the DM. What, exactly, is the narrative purpose here? Choices matter? When there was no forseeable way to predict this choice ever mattering?
If there are other options to calm the dragon, then, again, why the harp, specifically, of instrument choices, other than to perhaps put the bard who loves playing up their ability to calm with their pan flute (for an example of another typically calming instrument) in 'their place?' (or any other instrument other than the (as you pointed out, not even in the PH to choose) harp?). Why this line in the sand?
The argument seems to be that, otherwise, the bard would be getting away with something, that some choice they made (merely by virtue of choosing three specific instruments) is supposed to be a really important choice, so important that Jack of All Trades does not mitigate situations when their choice was not ideal. However, still trying to understand how that is being held equivalent to, say, spell choices, given there is a clear and obvious difference in utility between spells. And, moreover, that spells are indeed much more specific things than skills, or any other tool category. Carpentry tool skill does not differentiate between skill with hammer, skill with chisel and skill with saw, for example. Cooking tool skill does not differentiate between roasting, frying or baking, or even preparing cold sandwiches.
The dragon soothing harp thing reminded me, I don't know if there's similar scenes in other published adventures, but to compare the debate here to how WotC has actually put musical instruments into practice, so to speak, in published adventures, I remembered this in Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus:
A 15 charisma check to play a pipe organ with no mention of a need for proficiency I think gives a sense of the role instrument proficiency is intended have in play. I mean, if you're playing a "whoops, all bards!" game, yes, having a more carefully tuned attention to who can play what would be key; but it doesn't seem like the game's designers really want music to be that significant a stumbling block, but rather something players and DMs can enjoy noodling with.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.