Performer feat: is this an action?

[Fiskco]

In the UA for skills, I was looking at the performer feat, and one of the abilities you gain is the following;

While performing, you can try to distract one humanoid you can see who can see and hear you. Make a Charisma (Performance) check contested by the humanoid’s Wisdom (Insight) check. If your check succeeds, you grab the humanoid’s attention enough that it makes Wisdom (Perception) and Intelligence (Investigation) checks with disadvantage until you stop performing.

My question is: what type of action, if any, would this be in combat?

I want to use this in conjunction with phantasmal force, so the enemy has disadvantage against seeing through the illusion, but I'm not sure if this would take my action, one of my attack actions, a bonus action, or if it's just a free thing I can do on my turn.

My argument is that since phantasmal force is a concentration spell, and I'm using my lute as the focus, I would assume that means I'm playing my lute for duration, thus I would be performing, and since that's the only condition for the check to be made, I can make the performance check without needing to use my action (since I'm using that to cast the spell).

[Contrast]

I would assume that means I'm playing my lute for duration

Why would you assume that? A cast spell requires no active upkeep to maintain (I'm going to add the caveat 'unless it specifies that it does' but I can't think of one that does off the top of my head). You could certainly fluff it that way if you like but RAW once you're cast the spell your hands are free to do whatever you want.

Playing a lute is definitely an action in my opinion. There is a bit of a question as to if performing is always an action (talking is a free action after all) but most DMs will draw the line that if you want to proactively achieve something/engage someone it's an action. Trying to argue that it doesn't take an action because it doesn't say it does is the slipperiest of slopes. If there's ever doubt its the DMs decision - they might decide its like the glamour bards performance ability and requires a minute long performance :smallwink:

More than that, no matter how impressive the lute playing is there's a pretty good chance I'd have NPCs autoresist in combat (depending on the exact circumstances) as the imminent threat to their life is far more distracting.

Personally I'd be inclined to avoid this argument by just asking your DM to let you take the Prodigy feat instead.

[Chronos]

You could say that you're playing your lute while you're casting the spell, but continuing to play it after that would be a separate action. You don't keep interacting with your spellcasting focus for the entire time you're concentrating on a spell.

[Rukelnikov]

Well, this is a similar effect to that of the lvl 2 Enthrall spell, which is an action and lasts for one minute on any number of creatures of your choosing withing range.

In combat, I'd say it can be done as an action or as a free action as part of some other action that requires performing, for instance casting a bard spell with a lute as your focus. You would have disadvantage on your check in combat, and the effect would only last until your next round (when you could use it again), a creature that saves once against this feature is immune to it for the rest of the combat. If you lose concentration or use your reaction the effect ends.

[sophontteks]

They should have specified, but it is UA. When you make an active skill check its generally an action. You are spending your action performing, and using this ability to enhance the performance. Your action is definately spent.

[Man_Over_Game]

Ask yourself: Is it more or less distracting than drinking a potion?

Drinking a potion is an action. I'd consider performing in front of people as being more difficult than drinking a bottle, so I feel it should take an action.

[Galithar]

Ask yourself: Is it more or less distracting than drinking a potion?

Drinking a potion is an action. I'd consider performing in front of people as being more difficult than drinking a bottle, so I feel it should take an action.

Not saying your conclusion is wrong, but the potion taking an action is more of a gamist thing to prevent cost free healing. Listed under Object Interactions is "Drink all the ale in a flagon". Which if we used the same comparison performing because an object interaction.

I would stick with the gamist analysis though.
Are you creating a mechanical effect in combat? Yes
Is the action listed in SRD, PHB, or DMG as any form of bonus or free action? No
Use action (pending DM approves it at all)

[Friv]

My assumption, barring any other things, would be that it is not itself an action, but it requires you to be taking an action to use it. So if you use your lute to cast Phantasmal Force, you would be able to use this ability as a side effect, but you'd need to keep casting bard spells every turn or else devote a main action to playing lute to keep the effect going, since it ends if you stop Performing.

Since it only affects Perception and Investigation, rather than direct combat skills, that seems like a good compromise.

[Galithar]

My assumption, barring any other things, would be that it is not itself an action, but it requires you to be taking an action to use it. So if you use your lute to cast Phantasmal Force, you would be able to use this ability as a side effect, but you'd need to keep casting bard spells every turn or else devote a main action to playing lute to keep the effect going, since it ends if you stop Performing.

Since it only affects Perception and Investigation, rather than direct combat skills, that seems like a good compromise.

Well since the actual intent is to affect an enemys ability for breaking free of a spell effect I'd say that's a pretty direct combat skill.

[sophontteks]

My assumption, barring any other things, would be that it is not itself an action, but it requires you to be taking an action to use it. So if you use your lute to cast Phantasmal Force, you would be able to use this ability as a side effect, but you'd need to keep casting bard spells every turn or else devote a main action to playing lute to keep the effect going, since it ends if you stop Performing.

Since it only affects Perception and Investigation, rather than direct combat skills, that seems like a good compromise.
You can use your lute to perform. You can use your lute to cast a spell. But you can't use your lute to simultaneously cast a spell and perform. Those are two separate actions.

[Rukelnikov]

You can use your lute to perform. You can use your lute to cast a spell. But you can't use your lute to simultaneously cast a spell and perform. Those are two separate actions.

But casting REQUIRES that he performs with it

[Contrast]

But casting REQUIRES that he performs with it

Spellcasting requires he have a hand free to interact with the instrument if he wants to use it as a focus while casting.

That is some way from playing a song on it and further still from producing a performance so fine it distracts someone in the middle of a life or death battle. I imagine he might be arguing he wasn't playing it at all (which is totally justifiable) if he was trying to cast a spell with a material component sneakily.

Edit - or to put it another way, a bard could use a musical instrument as a focus just fine in a zone of silence provided the spell didn't have a verbal component. /edit

My opinion is that there's a reason these feats were all just simplified into the Prodigy feat instead of being published.

[Tanarii]

You dont play the lute when you use it as a focus. You just hold it. Even if the spell has an S component, that requires a free hand so it cant be occupied playing your lute.

[JoeJ]

You dont play the lute when you use it as a focus. You just hold it. Even if the spell has an S component, that requires a free hand so it cant be occupied playing your lute.

Unless playing the lute is the somatic component.

[Rukelnikov]

Unless playing the lute is the somatic component.

This has always been my interpretation with bards

[Galithar]

This has always been my interpretation with bards

Exactly. Your interpretation. That's not actually RAW and therefore is completely subject to DM approval. If someone were to insist that they are playing during somatic components of Bard spells though I would insist that silence prevents their somatic components as well as verbal. Which is clearly not RAW but I'd a logical extension of 'playing your focus'

[Contrast]

A spellcaster must have a free hand to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

You can perform somatic components while holding a focus without needing a separate free hand.

[Rukelnikov]

Exactly. Your interpretation. That's not actually RAW and therefore is completely subject to DM approval. If someone were to insist that they are playing during somatic components of Bard spells though I would insist that silence prevents their somatic components as well as verbal. Which is clearly not RAW but I'd a logical extension of 'playing your focus'

Well I checked the sage advice:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/09/18/spellcasting-focus-can-a-bard-use-their-voice-for-this/

"A spellcasting focus subs for a material component. Your voice is a verbal component. Dance would be somatic."

Performing is, or at the very least can be, your somatic component

[sophontteks]

This has always been my interpretation with bards
They can use their instrument without making a sound as a material component. There is a difference in using it to manipulate the weave and to manipulate sound. If they were required to make sound, it would have a verbal component. RP-wise he could be playing it but no sound is heard. For spells without S or V my bard may be tapping a few notes with his fingers. No sound, no real movement.

[Rukelnikov]

They can use their instrument without making a sound as a material component. There is a difference in using it to manipulate the weave and to manipulate sound. If they were required to make sound, it would have a verbal component. RP-wise he could be playing it but no sound is heard. For spells without S or V my bard may be tapping a few notes with his fingers. No sound, no real movement.

A wizard is not required to stand still to cast spells without somatic components or to be quiet while casting something without verbal component.

In the same way, a bard can choose to play every time, he will be providing the needed components and some more. The only case this is not true is for those with somatic components but without material ones, in that case, they can just dance and sing, as tweeted by JC.

[sophontteks]

A wizard is not required to stand still to cast spells without somatic components or to be quiet while casting something without verbal component.

In the same way, a bard can choose to play every time, he will be providing the needed components and some more. The only case this is not true is for those with somatic components but without material ones, in that case, they can just dance and sing, as tweeted by JC.

I think you are misinterpeting me. I am saying they aren't forced to dance and sing.

[Rukelnikov]

I think you are misinterpeting me. I am saying they aren't forced to dance and sing.

Oh, okay, I thought you were saying they couldn't choose to do so even if they wanted to, my bad.

[Tanarii]

Unless playing the lute is the somatic component.
Actually looking back at my post, it was wrong. The same free hand that's going to be used for the S component can be used to access your M component (or focus).


So yeah, depending on DM interpretation (see below) it could be playing the lute. With one hand no less, while the other is holding a rapier or whatever.


You can perform somatic components while holding a focus without needing a separate free hand.

Technically that's not what it says. It says you can use the same free hand used for somatic component to access your focus. Not that you can perform S components with a hand holding a focus.