The Performance Skill

[Floorlock]

So. As most people have seen throughout 5e's lifetime, the skill system is rather broad and sometimes up to a fair bit of interpretation.

There are 2 skills that seem to particularly fall to the wayside: Medicine and Performance.

Medicine always strikes me as somewhat odd in that it's based around the wisdom stat...presumably to better align with those classes most readily associated with healing: The Cleric and Druid. However, the Cleric and Druid heal through magic...with no real skill usage necessary. A big part of the Ranger fantasy is typically the use of poultices and the like for healing as well...so it still makes sense in that area... so I eventually decided to let it fall under either Wisdom or Intelligence to broaden its class application. (I know that 5e operates by the stat first and the skill second, I'm just referring to how it will typically appear on an individual's character sheet.) However, the fact still remains that its most common and concrete use, stabilizing a dying creature, is easily replaced by the relatively cheap Healer's Kit. I typically use Medicine as a separate knowledge check to do with anatomy, sickness, disease and the like...so it somewhat broadens the skill to some level of elevated use...even if barely.

However, the more I look over the Performance skill, the more I grow uncertain as to whether or not its inclusion is even necessary.

First of all: It nearly never comes up in a typical adventure. Its primary application is as a downtime ability...or some method of making a bit of extra cash on the side, or in particular social situations where wooing an object of affection or entrancing an audience of a noble court are in order....or the more rare situation of using it as a distraction while your party performs some other task.

Second: When these situations come up...they are almost always accomplished by performing in a musical manner...playing an instrument of some kind. However, the game already gives you ways to obtain proficiency in that department through the fact that Musical Instrument proficiency is given out as a form of tool proficiency. Wouldn't the easier solution be to simply allow the character proficiency through their tool and then allow their choice of either the Dexterity or Charisma stat to accompany the check?

Now...I know that not all performances are necessarily of a musical nature. A performance could also be a speech...or an acting performance...or a poetry reading... or a juggling act .... or a dance, etc. etc.

However, as I started to think about this....I really didn't see much of a reason for all of these performances to separate themselves into the separate skill of Performance.

A speech could be a persuasion check...as speeches are often persuasive in nature...whether in inspiring to action or in being argumentative.
An acting performance is really either a persuasion or deception check at its core...depending on how you look at it. It's really just the act of convincing you through words and actions of something that isn't real or true...whether malicious or simply for entertainment.
You have to squint a bit more for the poetry reading...but, I still believe that it could be persuasion as well...as it's the act of putting words in motion to coax desired emotion out of the listener or reader. (Though I also believe that this could theoretically be a tool proficiency, especially for those bards that might want to be a bit more Shakespearean.)
A Juggling act could really fall under something like sleight of hand or acrobatics.
Dancing could really fall under Athletics, Acrobatics, or maybe even some other proficiency implementation similar to a tool proficiency.

I feel that, as it stands now, it's probable that most bard PCs are taking the performance skill because it's expected as opposed to being often useful. After all, a bard without the performance skill seems rather ridiculous...almost as if one could not have become a bard without the skill in the first place. It's like having a Wizard without the Arcana skill: Possible....but, in a narrative....somewhat implausible.

But, as I've mentioned here about instruments being tool proficiencies and other performances easily falling under other umbrellas... It would seem that the performance skill is this strange vestigial appendage that really acts more as a strange skill tax than anything else.

So...my overall question is: Would removing the Performance skill entirely have any noticeable difference in the game? At first I wondered if removing it and encouraging bards to pick a more useful skill would be a boost in power, however slight, to an already strong class...but, then I remembered that they can just avoid taking the performance skill anyways and have almost no penalty for it.

The way I'm looking at it, (just using the the tool proficiency + either dex or charisma), they would have no penalty at all.

I don't know. I just don't see a big reason for the performance skill to exist.

TLDR:
The Medicine and Performance skills are extremely underwhelming. While Medicine is possibly salvageable, I don't see a reason for Performance to exist. Musical Instrument Tool proficiency can provide the proficiency bonus and the character can add either Dex or Cha depending. Performances such as speeches can be persuasion, things like Acting can be deception. Would anything truly be hurt if the Performance skill was removed from the game entirely?

[nickl_2000]

I see most skills add up to the DM to make sure they are usable if a PC takes them and the PC creating situations.

Performance is very useful for a distraction for the guards while the rest of the party sneaks in somewhere, or as a delaying tactic when in trouble. We used performance to create a harmonic dissonance that made a trap so less damage. In general it can be used in weird situations as long as the DM is game.

[Theodoxus]

I codified the following for these skills (I use the Second Wind and Healing Surges from 4th Edition; you could instead use First Aid to be the equivalent of the Healer Feat, allowing the use of a Healer's Kit to heal the wounded. I'd probably raise the DC to 15 to do that, however - else it steps all over the toes of the feat.)Medicine (Wisdom)You know how to help someone recover from wounds or debilitating conditions, including disease.
Stabilize the Dying: Make a DC 15 Medicine check to stabilize an adjacent dying character. If you succeed, the character can stop making death saving throws until they take damage. The character’s current hit point total doesn’t change as a result of being stabilized.

If you are proficient in this skill, you can use a medicine check to provide first aid:
First Aid: Standard action.
✦ Use Second Wind: Make a DC 10 Medicine check to allow an adjacent character to use their second wind without the character having to spend an action. The character doesn’t gain the defense bonuses normally granted by second wind.
✦ Grant a Saving Throw: Make a DC 15 Medicine check. If you succeed, an adjacent ally can immediately make a saving throw, or the ally gets a +2 bonus to a saving throw at the end of their next turn.

Performance (Charisma)
Your Performance check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, ar some other form of entertainment.
If you are proficient in this skill, while performing, you can try to distract one humanoid you can see who can see and hear you. Make a Performance check contested by the humanoid’s Insight check. If your check succeeds, you grab the humanoid’s attention enough that it makes Perception and Investigation checks with disadvantage until you stop performing.

[Floorlock]

I see most skills add up to the DM to make sure they are usable if a PC takes them and the PC creating situations.

Performance is very useful for a distraction for the guards while the rest of the party sneaks in somewhere, or as a delaying tactic when in trouble. We used performance to create a harmonic dissonance that made a trap so less damage. In general it can be used in weird situations as long as the DM is game.

What did you do to create that harmonic dissonance? Did you play instruments or use your voice? (I think voice should also be a selectable instrument for proficiency...but, that's a whole 'nother subject.)

In that situation, couldn't the check have theoretically fallen under my suggestion of the Musical Instrument Tool proficiency providing the proficiency bonus while you used your Charisma stat to provide an extra bonus? If that were to be the case, you would have been able to perform this scenario with proficiency while also being able to select a more often useful skill to have proficiency in during all of the other parts of the campaign. I just feel bad for how often the Performance skill seems more like a skill tax than anything else.

[stoutstien]

Preformance could easily be shifted into deception and persuasion into one general skill.
Medicine is hard. It fluctuates from absolutely necessary in a campaign that is more sword and sorcery to completely useless in others. Not to mention it's trying to cover both medical knowledge and applicable medical actions. It always felt like a feat or class feature over a skill.

I use a lot of diseases and other effects that makes medical come up occasionally but I know that's very rare in a lot of games.

[Lord Vukodlak]

In my group we've long used medicine as a kind of forensics are these wounds from claws or blades, was he poisoned are their signs of disease.


What did you do to create that harmonic dissonance? Did you play instruments or use your voice? (I think voice should also be a selectable instrument for proficiency...but, that's a whole 'nother subject.)

In that situation, couldn't the check have theoretically fallen under my suggestion of the Musical Instrument Tool proficiency providing the proficiency bonus while you used your Charisma stat to provide an extra bonus? If that were to be the case, you would have been able to perform this scenario with proficiency while also being able to select a more often useful skill to have proficiency in during all of the other parts of the campaign. I just feel bad for how often the Performance skill seems more like a skill tax than anything else.

You get to pick, it could be a thrilling story, singing or playing and instrument or even all three put together. Knowing how to play an instrument can let you panhandle being skilled in performance can make it a professional. Case in point in the downtime rules using a tool proficiency you can practice a profession to maintain a modest life style. While performance lets you maintain a wealthy lifestyle.

Performance lets you captivate a crowd in a way that simply being proficient in an instrument does not.

[HappyDaze]

I know of two times where Performance saved the party, but both were done by a creative DM. The first was a trap that could only be bypassed by performing of an intricate dance to move across the area (optionally, Acrobatics could be used with disadvantage). The second was a dragon that was way above the party's ability to fight that stated, "Tell me a story, if it entertains me, then you and your companions can leave with your lives."

Medicine is indeed very limited if you only think of health in terms of hit points, poisons, and disease. There are a range of other prevention and treatment measures that Medicine should be able to do beyond that that might allow a group to prepare against high altitude effects, better deal with deprivation (sleep, water, etc.), overcome infertility (or prevent conception) & ensure pregnancies reach successful completion (or are prematurely terminated), fit effective prosthetic limbs (building likely requires tool proficiency of some form), improve hygiene (both personal and public), prepare bodies for burial, and a lot more.

[Floorlock]

In my group we've long used medicine as a kind of forensics are these wounds from claws or blades, was he poisoned are their signs of disease.



You get to pick, it could be a thrilling story, singing or playing and instrument or even all three put together. Knowing how to play an instrument can let you panhandle being skilled in performance can make it a professional. Case in point in the downtime rules using a tool proficiency you can practice a profession to maintain a modest life style. While performance lets you maintain a wealthy lifestyle.

Performance lets you captivate a crowd in a way that simply being proficient in an instrument does not.


I definitely agree on the subject of the medicine skill...and I often use it in the very same way. I still believe that the skill is somewhat limited, but, this does push it into more areas of applicability. I especially run a lot of intrigue... and this type of thing can come up when the PCs are Sherlocking it up.

My main gripe, however, is still with the Performance skill. I see what you're saying...and the section on Downtime rules is something I overlooked.

However, I suppose my question is more in line with.... Should it be that way?

In my original post I talked about how rare of an occurrence the performance skill actually is in most games. The most often and obvious application of the skill is as a downtime activity. Should it be the case that the Performance skill is required to maintain a wealthy lifestyle in such a way? Couldn't proficiency in the talent in question suffice? It seems to me that growth in ability can just as easily be simulated by a growing Dexterity or Charisma stat along with an increasing proficiency score without ever having to touch the actual Performance skill. It just seems that taking the Performance skill is a large price to pay for such a typically minuscule portion of the game. Like...Imagine a world where we can do all the performance shenanigans that we're talking of here...ALONG with grabbing a skill proficiency that will more often see use.

After all, what is the point of proficiency in a musical instrument if they don't actually apply a proficiency bonus without the performance skill? Like...what mechanical benefit is conferred by having both the Performance skill and a Musical Instrument Proficiency? There is no mechanical benefit by raw that I've seen, but, I will also admit that it's possible that I've missed something somewhere. However, even the example of the performance skill allowing a wealthy lifestyle in the PHB doesn't mention anything about tool proficiency...it just states that you can do so if you're proficient in the skill.

I've seen where some DMs have houseruled the situation to make it where having both the skill and instrument proficiency allows advantage.... but, then we're in a situation of having near permanent advantage when playing an instrument...which might tend to make the whole situation a bit too binary. Always being useless until it's not...and then having SUCH high chances of success.... I don't know.

I just feel like the whole ordeal can easily be solved by allowing the instruments to confer their proficiency bonus...since you are proficient with them, after all, and then adding dexterity or charisma, with the possible option of having DM granted advantage when appropriate. And now, under this scope, we can take a more useful skill with Performance out of the way.

Maybe your bard wanted to be good at stealth...but, his or her proficiency choices were used up to fill the need of having the performance skill to fit the flavor of their character. Now you can perform when you need to...but, you eventually realize how rarely that comes up. Unfortunately, stealth comes up quite a lot...and you're not as good as it as you could have been. And yes...I know that a DM can twist the world around to make certain that there are multiple opportunities for Performance to shine...but, at that point it's a bit too clear that you're giving out major story beats out of pity to cater to the clearly weaker skill choices. Under the form that I'm suggesting...none of this would be a problem. Your bard could essentially be good at both stealth AND performance, because they clearly have the musical instrument tool proficiency provided by their class.

Obviously this isn't as big of a deal for something like a Lore Bard...but, it's come up in some ways for the other subclasses.

Some might also point out that removing the Performance skill also removes the option of putting expertise IN the performance skill. Well. About that:

First, I think as much as performance sometimes seems like a skill tax...it would feel that way doubly so if it were to also use one of your precious expertise choices. At that point you really do need to just hope for a nice DM that will 100% make certain to feature performance as a noteworthy, potentially plot-changing skill.

Second: To be fair, I think expertise should be given out more than it is anyways. I actually believe that Bards should be allowed to at least choose one, two, or maybe even three instruments to be granted expertise in. I especially think this should be the case with the advent of the Artificer Class. The Artificer is eventually granted expertise in every single tool that they have proficiency in...and since those tools can be musical instruments...you wind up in a world where the men of science are rocking out much harder than the actual rockstars of the world. Lol.
Similarly, I believe that the Forge Cleric should give expertise in Smith's Tools, so they can at least smith as well as an Artificer.
And finally, I don't know if it would hurt too much to allow Wizards to eventually garner expertise in Arcana. It's always slightly bothersome that they can be out-knowledged about magical exploits by Rogues and Knowledge Clerics...considering that Studying Magic is the very foundation of the class identity. They should at least maybe get the skill for free...

Point is in all this...I'm asking if it would really be so gamebreaking to essentially allow a bard the performance skill for free by way of removing the skill altogether and basing performances around tool proficiencies? It doesn't seem so crazy to me at first glance...given how minuscule an impact performance typically has on the game.

[JNAProductions]

TLDR:
The Medicine and Performance skills are extremely underwhelming. While Medicine is possibly salvageable, I don't see a reason for Performance to exist. Musical Instrument Tool proficiency can provide the proficiency bonus and the character can add either Dex or Cha depending. Performances such as speeches can be persuasion, things like Acting can be deception. Would anything truly be hurt if the Performance skill was removed from the game entirely?

I came into this thread just to say "Performance shouldn't exist as a skill, it should be a tool proficiency or equivalent. Lute proficiency, or acting proficiency, or oratory proficiency."

In other words, you're saying exactly what I think.

[Tanarii]

Performance only exists as a skill because Bards exist. And somewhere before 2e they became a caricature, the troubadour Bard.

[Lunali]

Performance is the ability to entertain people, skill checks for it should be when the level of entertainment is the key factor, making it mostly useless outside of making money.

If you're trying to distract the guards, deception would be more appropriate as it doesn't matter how entertaining you are as much as it matters that you get their attention and cover up the sound of plate mail behind them. After you're done, you likely don't care if they were entertained or think you're just a crazy drunk.

As for tool proficiencies, as a rule I wouldn't even allow a performance check with an instrument if you don't have proficiency.

[Belzique]

My table uses Performance to act a role, and this can have many applications. For example if someone disguises themselves as someone else it's Performance to act like them, or if someone is attempting to seduce a person it's often Performance as well. It's not much, but it has helped the skill somewhat. Like this we can also ask ourselves whether some sort of Deception is planned because if it is then Performance can be used if it is rehearsed, while Deception is more on-the-spot lying or fast talk. Basically 'planned' vs 'winging it'.

[Ventruenox]

In my last campaign, my Bardlock's Performance skill became crucial during a combat encounter. The DM had us under siege fending off waves of Githyanki warriors, and we had to coax a terrified NPC into embracing her destiny and transform into a dragon. I roll a Nat 20 and role play a Disney-esque song to the tune of "Put the lime in the coconut".

[Ninja_Prawn]

Sometimes skill usage depends on the kind of game you're playing, too. As an example, I'm running a fey-themed game at the moment, and that has featured quite a lot of Performance checks (all of the Charisma skills are getting a workout, really). I'm pretty sure some of my players get offended when I ask them to roll Deception - it's like I'm calling them out for lying. "Come on, that was a Performance!" "I'm trying to Persuade them!"

[Pex]

As a DM I use Medicine when a player wants to know how close to death an opponent is. The DC is 10 or 15 depending on the type of creature whether the PC could possibly tell from the anatomy. It doesn't cost any action.

As a player a DM has used Performance for roleplay purposes to get a crowd reaction when the PC tells the tale of things he has done. In general Performance is used when you want to affect emotion.

[pragma]

I agree strongly with this sentiment.

I'd go further and say medicine should go (replaced by healer's kit proficiency) and acrobatics should go (rolled into athletics), and nature should go (rolled into survival). Bits of general knowledge stuff that are lost in this transition, anatomy and weird details about trees, should get lumped into history.

I also think intimidation should be listed under strength, and I find the animal handling and sleight of hand skills niche enough to be uncertain. A few mounted combat maneuvers and sleight of hand maneuvers (maybe a disarm?) added to the combat system would probably be enough to make those skills relevant.

[HappyDaze]

I agree strongly with this sentiment.

I'd go further and say medicine should go (replaced by healer's kit proficiency) and acrobatics should go (rolled into athletics), and nature should go (rolled into survival). Bits of general knowledge stuff that are lost in this transition, anatomy and weird details about trees, should get lumped into history.

I also think intimidation should be listed under strength, and I find the animal handling and sleight of hand skills niche enough to be uncertain. A few mounted combat maneuvers and sleight of hand maneuvers (maybe a disarm?) added to the combat system would probably be enough to make those skills relevant.

Nature and Survival are most certainly not the same thing. A botanist doesn't necessarily know how to forage, a zoologist necessarily know how to track creatures, and a weatherman isn't necessarily skilled in starting fires in rough weather.

I also don't see how "anatomy and weird details about trees" is even remotely in the realm of History.

[stoutstien]

Nature and Survival are most certainly not the same thing. A botanist doesn't necessarily know how to forage, a zoologist necessarily know how to track creatures, and a weatherman isn't necessarily skilled in starting fires in rough weather.

I also don't see how "anatomy and weird details about trees" is even remotely in the realm of History.
performance makes you equally good at performing Opera and tap dancing or Athletics benefits both competitive rock climbing and orc leg wrestling. Skills are both too broad and narrow simultaneously.

[Mr Adventurer]

I wonder if you could do something like:

Lore (History skill, Medicine skill, general knowledge, natural philosophy, religious rites and symbols, the natures of humanoid, dragon, and elemental creatures)
Wilderness Lore (Survival skill, Nature skill, the natures of beasts, fey, plant, and ooze creatures)
Arcane Lore (Arcana skill, specific knowledge of small-"r"-rituals which can invoke occult or religious effect, aberration, celestial, construct, fiend, undead, and monstrosity creatures)

[Samayu]

Performance is the ability to entertain people...

As for tool proficiencies, as a rule I wouldn't even allow a performance check with an instrument if you don't have proficiency.

This. Playing a lute well does not mean everybody will gather around to hear you play it. That's why Performance is charisma based, and not dexterity. How well do you know your audience?

[Tanarii]

Warhammer has a skill called Oratory. Performance might be a good substitute for this. When you're trying to convince a crowd rather than an individual to do something you want possibly at some risk to themselves (see DMG table for DCs), roll Performance. If it's an individual use Persuasion. Different techniques.

[Pex]

I agree strongly with this sentiment.

I'd go further and say medicine should go (replaced by healer's kit proficiency) and acrobatics should go (rolled into athletics), and nature should go (rolled into survival). Bits of general knowledge stuff that are lost in this transition, anatomy and weird details about trees, should get lumped into history.

I also think intimidation should be listed under strength, and I find the animal handling and sleight of hand skills niche enough to be uncertain. A few mounted combat maneuvers and sleight of hand maneuvers (maybe a disarm?) added to the combat system would probably be enough to make those skills relevant.

Such as what's the climb DC?

Sorry, couldn't resist for those who get it. :smallbiggrin:

[Danielqueue1]

Of course the skills are not listed so clearly as to be no overlap, but to say performance should be entirely subsumed by persuasion is on the same line as saying deception should be peruasion because you are persuading someone to believe in something false.

There's a difference between playing music in a sound studio and entertaining a crowd. It takes different skills to convince a nobleman that the king needs to go than to incite a riot in the slums. It is different skill to convince a general to invade than to give a motivating speach to a group of soldiers. A joke is only funny if it is told properly. And magicians do the same 3 tricks over and over again, but it is the performance that gets them shows.

The real world has millions of different skills, games don't have that kind of room, so it is simplified down. How far it should be simplified is a matter of taste. Some believe that there should be 30 more skills added to the list, others think that there should only be 6 total. Some say that D&D should get rid of stats entirely and somehow believe that it wouldn't be an entirely different game. I believe that performance has a place, but many playstyles and DMs don't bother making the distinction.

[pragma]

I wonder if you could do something like:

Lore (History skill, Medicine skill, general knowledge, natural philosophy, religious rites and symbols, the natures of humanoid, dragon, and elemental creatures)
Wilderness Lore (Survival skill, Nature skill, the natures of beasts, fey, plant, and ooze creatures)
Arcane Lore (Arcana skill, specific knowledge of small-"r"-rituals which can invoke occult or religious effect, aberration, celestial, construct, fiend, undead, and monstrosity creatures)

I like all the riffing on these ideas that you guys have thrown out, and I find the quoted breakdown interesting. Pex's insistence that characters proficient in history have knowledge of the game rules is less so.

I'm glad for the discussion because it gives me a chance to explain why I picked this particular set of skill mergers and cuts. I wanted to do the following:
* Make which skill or proficiency to roll more obvious by reducing overlapping skills
* Reduce trap skills by getting rid of niche skills and giving ways for players to opt to roll underutilized skills more often
* Balance the quality of attributes for the skill system a bit and make single attribute more specialists able to contribute in more scenarios, particularly social ones.
* Try to reinforce some class fantasies (notably, rogues will probably want int (investigation) more than wis (perception) under this system; not a lot of wise rogues in fiction.)
* Keep changes small enough that I don't have to rewrite much.

For discussion purposes, I've included my modified skills list below along with things I think ought to be covered by each:
STR (Athletics) -- jumping, swimming, climbing, grappling, shoving, balancing, moving heavy stuff
STR (Intimidate) -- scaring people, any kind of mean negotiation, getting monsters to back down, scary gather information
DEX (Stealth) -- per usual
DEX (Sleight of hand) -- per usual, plus a combat maneuver that lets you trade your actions for enemy actions at some exchange rate.
INT (History) -- general knowledge about the prime and people in it. Who lives where, how cultures work, folklore. Catchall for knowledge that falls through the cracks.
INT (Arcana) -- identifying magical effects caused by spells. Analyzing clues on magic items and traps. Can I do something weird w/ spell x?
INT (Religion) -- outsiders, aberrations, cosmology / planar knowledge, the gods.
INT (Investigation) -- CSI stuff. Looking around for stuff that is close to you. Early warning about traps when exploring slowly.
WIS (Animal Handling) -- Riding horses. Charming wolves.
WIS (Insight) -- expanded from just reading a person. Also includes reading a room, empathizing and appeals to emotion
WIS (Perception) -- a little reduced in scope. Mostly early warning about ambushes and seeing specks on the horizon
WIS (Survival) -- tracking, hunting, identifying animals and plants, foraging, sheltering in the wilderness, early warning against natural hazards.
CHA (Persuasion) -- negotiating, convincing peoples to do stuff, friendly gather information
CHA (Deception) -- lying, blending into a crowd,

Other stuff, and particularly niche stuff (engineering, forgery, etc.), should get lumped into tool proficiencies. Since proficiencies play a bigger role in this reworked system and there are fewer total skills, I think backgrounds should give tool proficiencies instead of skills. I can hammer out more detailed, class-by-class changes to char gen I'd recommend and post them if there's interest.

Some other side thoughts:
* I'd humor merging religion and history into one skill called Lore.
* it still looks to me like WIS has too many good skills and also the best save in the game
* I could go on forever about moving around saves to compensate for imbalances in these skills, but that gets outside the scope of "small changes" pretty fast.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Every skill is a broad range of other skills or ideas and Performance is no different.

I'm pretty sure 5e was going to be more freeform than it is, but they went half-donkey with it and made the skill system what it is.

Performance isn't playing an instrument, it's being cool while playing an instrument. A great way to make more money or get more fame is to be cooler than others at something. There are plenty of technically sound musicians out there, but damn, some are just cooler than others.

So yeah, performance should be a skill. It's the difference between being Daniel and The Cooler Daniel. The difference between playing that Lute as a backup instrument in a pop song or playing it like you ate B. B. King, Angus Young, and Tony Iommi!

[Tanarii]

Such as what's the climb DC?

Sorry, couldn't resist for those who get it. :smallbiggrin:
Oh that's a GOOD use for Intelligence (skill to be used) variant checks.

Estimate difficulty
Time = Same as action to be taken?*
DC = Check DC-10? Static DC 10 or 15?

(Also I lol'd :smallamused: )

*can do x10 for automatic success, but if you've got that time it's generally better to just skip straight to automatically succeeding on the original check. Unless it turns out you can't for some reason, most likely consequences for failure.

[patchyman]

Sometimes skill usage depends on the kind of game you're playing, too. As an example, I'm running a fey-themed game at the moment, and that has featured quite a lot of Performance checks (all of the Charisma skills are getting a workout, really). I'm pretty sure some of my players get offended when I ask them to roll Deception - it's like I'm calling them out for lying. "Come on, that was a Performance!" "I'm trying to Persuade them!"

I’m also in a fey-themed campaign (homebrew) and Performance has definitely been useful. I have called for Performance checks to recall information that a Performer would know (in one case, the passphrase to a maze was a love poem, and in the other, it was used to identify the setting’s equivalent of Romeo and Juliet).

I agree that in many campaigns, Performance tends to be niche. For that reason, I consider it a good candidate as a skill to replace in a themed campaign. As an example, in a pirate themed campaign, I might replace Performance with a Seafaring skill, or in a Planar campaign, I might replace it with Planar Lore.

[Greywander]

Something to remember is that you can decouple skills from ability scores. For example, a Medicine check could use Intelligence (diagnosing a patient, using knowledge of biology), Wisdom (performing first aid or giving medical treatment without full knowledge of the patient's condition, or observing a creature's condition without being able to give them a full checkup), Dexterity (performing surgery), and so on. One of the nice things about decoupling skills from ability scores is that it makes it less unoptimized to take a skill normally associated with a dump stat.

INT - Factual knowledge, education, critical thinking, and puzzle solving.
WIS - Intuition, practical experience, and awareness.

Knowing which one to use, or even giving players the option based on how they want to do something, can help enrich a more limited skill system. You could even get rid of Investigation this way, substituting it with Intelligence (Perception) checks instead. Or you could broaden Investigation to include things like deductive reasoning, information gathering, etc.

For Performance, I definitely see where you're coming from. It kinda works if you use multiple checks (e.g. a lute check to play well, a perform check to get the audience into it), but I feel like 5e prefers to condense things into 1 action = 1 roll.

Another thing to consider is that it's not necessarily bad to have skills which overlap. Maybe you want a character who is good at singing, but not playing an instrument. Maybe you want a character who can dance, but isn't particularly acrobatic. Maybe you want a character who can juggle, but not necessarily pick pockets. Maybe you want a character who can act, but isn't necessarily a convincing liar.

You could allow characters to use different skills to do the same thing. Where Performance could shine is as a single skill for an actor or circus performer, whereas characters who aren't those things could use different skills for those specific parts where they overlap. But you're right, it does feel like Performance doesn't really have an identity of its own and could be replaced with other skills.

[follacchioso]

I use Performance for Illusions as well. Basic illusions are fine without a roll, but if a players wants to create advanced and sophisticated illusions they should roll a Performance or Arcana check (depending on circumstances)

[HappyDaze]

I use Performance for Illusions as well. Basic illusions are fine without a roll, but if a players wants to create advanced and sophisticated illusions they should roll a Performance or Arcana check (depending on circumstances)

You're giving them a choice between a very underused skill (Performance) and a very commonly used skill (Arcana)? Don't be surprised if they keep taking proficiency in Arcana and continue to avoid Performance.

[diplomancer]

I think one thing missing from this discussion is the fundamentally different nature of skills and tools. If I don't know how to play a musical instrument, any check I make to play them is an automatic failure. The same does not apply to the skills, because there is no such thing as a skill check, only an ability check.

I will give an example; I had a party with a Bladesinger (proficient in performance and the lute), and my Paladin (non proficient). When the bladesinger started playing his lute on the tavern, I said "I join the music, singing"
We both rolled charisma checks, but he could add his proficiency to the check and I could not.

That being said, Performance checks are quite common in my experience. You don't need to leave it to the pros (though having high charisma helps) ;)

[Tanarii]

If I don't know how to play a musical instrument, any check I make to play them is an automatic failure. Citation? I ask because last I can recall, I *thought* this was true, but it turned out to only be true for Thieves Tools.

[Man_Over_Game]

I wonder if you could do something like:

Lore (History skill, Medicine skill, general knowledge, natural philosophy, religious rites and symbols, the natures of humanoid, dragon, and elemental creatures)
Wilderness Lore (Survival skill, Nature skill, the natures of beasts, fey, plant, and ooze creatures)
Arcane Lore (Arcana skill, specific knowledge of small-"r"-rituals which can invoke occult or religious effect, aberration, celestial, construct, fiend, undead, and monstrosity creatures)

One solution that people have come up with is making Proficiencies based on your attribute, not on your skills. That is, you're proficient in Wisdom, not Insight/Perception/Medicine. It sounds like it'd encompass something like what you're looking for.

Myself and a few others did some calculations a while back on how to make it work. Set it up so that every 3 normal proficiencies (rounded down to 1) accounts for 1 Attribute proficiency (So a Rogue would start with 2 Attribute proficiencies). For calculating Expertise, only gain Expertise once per feature (so Rogues would start level 1 with 2 Attribute Proficiencies and 1 Attribute Expertise).

-----------------------

My solution is a bit different. You tell me what you want to do, I tell you what attribute you use, you tell me what proficiencies you want to apply. If you suggest 2 or more proficiencies that are applicable, you get Advantage.

So if you want to use Medicine and Investigation to find clues into someone's murder, you can do that. However, I would not allow you to use Animal Handling, unless the victim or their assailant was an animal.

That way, every aspect of your character is as relevant as you want it to be.

[Fable Wright]

So, would anyone object to turning Medicine and Performance into tool proficiencies? Since Medicine is niche, even as forensics, it makes sense that a Medicine Kit proficiency is less valuable a skill than the broader Investigation.

[Tanarii]

So, would anyone object to turning Medicine and Performance into tool proficiencies? Since Medicine is niche, even as forensics, it makes sense that a Medicine Kit proficiency is less valuable a skill than the broader Investigation.
Just make it proficiency in the Healing Kit, and make its use require a DC 10 Wisdom check. Definitely how it should have been in the first place.

[diplomancer]

Citation? I ask because last I can recall, I *thought* this was true, but it turned out to only be true for Thieves Tools.

I'd say it's a DM's call. The wording for all the tools, including Thieves' Tools, is exactly the same ("if you are proficient... you can add"), but thieves' tools, as an example in the working together rules state that you can only try to pick a lock if you have proficiency in Thieves's Tools.

My ruling is that, if this is true for Thieves' Tools, it should be true for more complex tools as well (like pretty much any musical instrument). Less complex tools (like a disguise kit or a forgery kit) might be different. Xanathar also adds similar restrictions for Artisan's tools.

If a player thinks that it's possible to try to play any musical instrument without any training, I suggest he go to a very isolated place with a violin and see for himself ;)

[Tanarii]

If a player thinks that it's possible to try to play any musical instrument without any training, I suggest he go to a very isolated place with a violin and see for himself ;)
The flaw in your argument is that Proficiency != training. Per the PHB, Ability Scores = innate talent AND training, whereas Proficiency = a focus.

[diplomancer]

The flaw in your argument is that Proficiency != training. Per the PHB, Ability Scores = innate talent AND training, whereas Proficiency = a focus.
But this doesn't really work for tools proficiency, which are explicitly not tied to any ability score. This argument works for skills, not for tools. Which is the ability score that measures the innate talent and training of a violinist? Is it dex? Is it cha? Is it int? Is it wis? You can make a case for all of those. Whichever one it is you choose? Are you claiming that all rogues/sorcerers/wizards/druids (depending on the ability you chose) have some training in playing a musical instrument? Conversely, why doesn't that reasoning apply to Thieves' Tools (which are almost always dex)?

It gets worse if you go from musical instruments to artisan tools (which, as I mentioned, have explicit rules in Xanathar about it being necessary to be proficient in the appropriate tools to craft an item)

[Tanarii]

Whichever one it is you choose? Are you claiming that all rogues/sorcerers/wizards/druids (depending on the ability you chose) have some training in playing a musical instrument?
Whichever one the DM chooses to have you make your check with, which is a straight ability check with no proficiency bonus.

No, I'm saying that any character the DM and Player agree is capable of making a check, is sufficiently trained. Same as with any other check.

There is nothing in the game for generic checks that officially delineates which characters have knowledge necessary to make a check, and which don't. Proficiency definitely doesn't indicate that.

Basically, it's the same answer as the one to the question "can the Barbarian make an Intellligence check to recall some Arcane Lore?" (Question presumes the table uses Intelligence checks as a Knowledge check, to determine state-of-the-character.)

[diplomancer]

Whichever one the DM chooses to have you make your check with, which is a straight ability check with no proficiency bonus.

No, I'm saying that any character the DM and Player agree is capable of making a check, is sufficiently trained. Same as with any other check.

There is nothing in the game for generic checks that officially delineates which characters have knowledge necessary to make a check, and which don't. Proficiency definitely doesn't indicate that.

Basically, it's the same answer as the one to the question "can the Barbarian make an Intellligence check to recall some Arcane Lore?" (Question presumes the table uses Intelligence checks as a Knowledge check, to determine state-of-the-character.)

But can the DM say to the player that wants to play the violin with no proficiency "sorry, your character doesn't know how to play any musical instrument at all, he doesn't even know where to start"? I say yes. I would be surprised to learn of DMs that allow it. It creates all sort of problems within the skill system (and if any character can try, does that mean that ALL adventurers have some training in musical instruments? It gets odder and odder)


The ability check general rule says "when the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the result". There is nothing uncertain about the outcome of someone playing an instrument without any musical training. They will fail. If anything, I'd say someone has a better chance of picking a lock without any training than of playing a musical instrument in any way that is pleasing to the ear.


And I don't think the same applies to a character who attempts a Cha (performance) check. Anyone of sufficient high charisma who goes on stage has a good chance of entertaining people, without any special focus.

[LtPowers]

However, the more I look over the Performance skill, the more I grow uncertain as to whether or not its inclusion is even necessary.

So here's what happened, I think.

You may recall that 4e shrunk the enormous 3e skill list down to a relative handful of skills (and eliminated skill ranks to boot). One of the most significant eliminations was Perform.

Among the many other complaints about 4e, Bards (in particular) were upset that they had no way to mechanically represent their supreme skill in performing. Never mind that there were skill checks for any conceivable use of their ability; Bards were used to cranking that Perform skill up to +20, +30, +40, and now here was 4e saying "it doesn't matter how you're trying to impress the crowd (e.g., by playing a killer guitar solo); what matters is how good your Diplomacy check is".

It was probably the right solution. But it was unsatisfying for many players of Bards. It left them without a mechanical way to demonstrate their superiority.

So I think that's why Performance was added back into 5e, despite the reasons you enumerate. It's because they tried it the other way and people who play Bards objected.


Powers &8^]

[Man_Over_Game]

So here's what happened, I think.

You may recall that 4e shrunk the enormous 3e skill list down to a relative handful of skills (and eliminated skill ranks to boot). One of the most significant eliminations was Perform.

Among the many other complaints about 4e, Bards (in particular) were upset that they had no way to mechanically represent their supreme skill in performing. Never mind that there were skill checks for any conceivable use of their ability; Bards were used to cranking that Perform skill up to +20, +30, +40, and now here was 4e saying "it doesn't matter how you're trying to impress the crowd (e.g., by playing a killer guitar solo); what matters is how good your Diplomacy check is".

It was probably the right solution. But it was unsatisfying for many players of Bards. It left them without a mechanical way to demonstrate their superiority.

So I think that's why Performance was added back into 5e, despite the reasons you enumerate. It's because they tried it the other way and people who play Bards objected.


Powers &8^]

Makes me consider whether it's better to remove any skills that you can't see more than one class using.

Stealth? Maybe a Fighter or a Ranger. Sleight of Hand? Definitely Rogue-specific, ditch it.

Arcana? A lot of classes. Religion? Probably only Cleric or Paladin, but that's more than 1, so keep it. Nature? Probably only Druid.

From there, just add class features to compensate for what was lost. So it's not that there isn't a Performance option for Bards. Rather, Bards can use a class feature that uses Persuasion to entice people with their bardic magic/music, which is something unique to their use of Persuasion.

[Floorlock]

Thanks again, everyone, for all of the replies. A lot of these viewpoints have given more clarity and insight as to the overall consensus of this topic...whether as a perceived problem or otherwise.

I will say: I've noticed that quite a few people have come in to supply personal anecdotes of times in their own campaigns where their characters or others' have used performance to at least nominal effect. Some have even provided examples where an entire campaign might have more liberally frequent uses of the performance skill.

I thank you for your replies, but, I do want to reiterate: I am aware of what the performance skill is supposed to do and in what instances it might prove useful. My proposal is not one of removing a character's ability to perform...but, rather a proposal to keep a character's ability to perform while also allowing them to pick up a skill that will more often see use in most campaigns. By tying the performance skill to tools, you allow the bard to essentially have the performance skill along with also being able to pick another skill...such as stealth or perception...or whatever else they didn't pick up that would have seen more typical use. This would essentially be a slight buff. For most practical purposes...those who see the Performance skill as still being an essential piece of the game could view my proposal as simply allowing the Bard to have the performance skill for free...as a bonus to their list of proficiencies.

Through all of this, though...nothing has really gotten down to what the musical instruments do by RAW:


A tool helps you to do something you couldn't otherwise do, such as craft or repair an item, forge a document, or pick a lock. Your race, class, background, or feats give you proficiency with certain tools. Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool. Tool use is not tied to a single ability, since proficiency with a tool represents broader knowledge of its use. For example, the DM might ask you to make a Dexterity check to carve a fine detail with your woodcarver's tools, or a Strength check to make something out of particularly hard wood.


That's from the PHB page 154. It says there that proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to ANY ability check you make using that tool. The most typical and clear case of this happening is obviously with Thieves' Tools. By having proficiency with thieves' tools, one can add their proficiency bonus when using them to attempt to pick a lock...usually accompanied by the character's dexterity modifier. So this is the case then for all tools, right? So a check using a musical instrument would confer your proficiency bonus if you are proficient with that instrument, along with a stat modifier of some kind as chosen by the DM. (I would typically let the player choose between dex or charisma...but, that's neither here nor there.)

These are the Rules as Written. This is how one is meant to play the game as per the instructions of the book.

What then...does the Performance skill do in the instance of a character making a check to play with a musical instrument? By RAW....absolutely nothing. It has no purpose, and is wholly redundant. It can't even be argued that the Performance skill guarantees the use of the Charisma stat modifier...because the nature of 5e dictates that the DM decides what stat is most applicable first and then decides whether proficiency would apply....and the DM in these cases is well within his or her right to decide that any stat other than Charisma may be more reasonable.

Now...as I stated in my original post, I have seen where some DMs allow advantage in such cases. However, there is nothing within the rules to state that this is the case....essentially making this decision a house rule. And since we're house ruling to make this whole thing run a bit more smoothly anyways... that's why I'm suggesting that we get rid of the Performance skill altogether and instead have performances be based out of tool proficiencies.

This way we also solve the problem of characters oddly being capable of any and all types of performances at near equal levels. It doesn't necessarily make sense that a bard would be nearly equally proficient in performing an Opera, AND playing a lute, AND dancing, AND writing a poem, AND performing a speech, AND playing the drums, AND performing a juggling act, AND telling jokes, AND singing songs, AND storytelling. A lot of these things can come from general Charisma possibly...but, they are different focuses with only some levels of overlap in certain areas.




Now...I've also seen where a few of you have commented that Performance should remain to distinguish between the technical aspect of playing an instrument and the pure charisma and presentation of an engaging performer.
Well.
First: Once again, would there be any mechanical difference? If you, as a DM, decide that a performance hinges on the inherit "cool factor" and presence of the performer...then it sounds as if you've decided that this is a Charisma Check. Now, you look at how their character is playing an instrument. Because their character has proficiency in the instrument, they are allowed their proficiency bonus along with their Charisma stat to this Charisma Check. Awesome.
Now...let's say that instead...you specifically make them use the Performance skill. Let's say that they're proficient in the Performance skill...and this is that same Charisma Check. Well...the Performance skill allows them their proficiency bonus...just as the tool would have. So, we're in the same place on that front. If you believe that the mechanical difference would come down to the fact that Expertise can be put into performance by whatever pour soul would make such a decision, I want to also state that I believe that Bards should maybe be given automatic expertise in a couple instruments or so...especially with the advent of the Artificer...who gains expertise in every single tool that they're proficient with.
Second: Isn't the Charisma stat, by itself, already a measure of a character's raw sense of presence? Shouldn't the potentially growing Charisma Modifier, along with the ever-growing proficiency score, suffice to represent a character's potential bonus to overall "cool factor" or "stage presence?" You know...a Monk can choose to gain proficiency with a musical instrument from their class at level 1. I could see an argument for them playing technically using the dexterity modifier or such along with their proficiency bonus without having to have the presence to go full rock-star or something. I just still don't know if a whole extra skill proficiency is needed in all of these cases.


Now...on to the subject of performances that aren't based around tool usage. As I already addressed, I believe that most performances can be covered by other skills. Acting, for example, can simply be a deception check. In fact, the Actor Feat on page 165 of the Player's Handbook expressly gives your character advantage on Charisma (Deception) AND Charisma (Performance) checks to pass yourself off as another person...which almost seemed to indicate to me that the designers knew that the line between the two skill in this situation was a blurry one. I also believe that rousing speeches can be placed under persuasion, juggling can be placed under slight of hand or acrobatics, Dancing can be placed under athletics or acrobatics...etc. etc.

However, a few of you have pointed out to me in this thread that there are some weird areas of overlap in abiding by this method. What if you want your character to be a good Actor...but, not necessarily a talented liar. There is some overlap there...but, it isn't a 1:1 translation. Someone can be amazing with scripts, outward projection, and even improvisational ability...but, then crack when needing to keep a poker face off of the stage. I think that most players who want to have their character be an actor will want them to have the ability to deceive with their craft...but, it's possible that some might not. What about the nuances and dynamics of speech patterns and presence when it comes to either giving a Speech to a crowd or personally Persuading an individual? Here again...I think that there is enough overlap to have it simply work off of one proficiency when it comes to a game.....but, I will concede that there are different techniques involved in the two different processes...and some might want more of a distinction.
And what about things such as Singing? Singing is definitely musical in nature...but, there is no tool proficiency involved.

Well...when it comes to these things, I would propose that there be additional proficiencies added in the same vein as tool proficiencies.
For one, I believe that Voice should be a selectable proficiency. Perhaps it shouldn't be allowed to act as a spell casting focus...depending on how you feel about focuses, full hands, and disarming bards and whatnot...but, it's definitely an instrument like any other. Your voice is primarily genetically crafted...but, it's still somewhat trainable no matter who you are...and it only makes sense to allow proficiency the same way you would with a lute.

Secondly...I think things such as Speech-Giving, Acting, Storytelling and the like could have potentially fallen into being simply additional proficiencies... essentially being akin to tools .... just without really necessarily requiring physical objects. I think that the Entertainer Background would have been a good place to start with something like this. See...the Entertainer Background has a section that is labeled as: Entertainer Routines. This section suggests to either pick 3 routines or randomly roll for them. It has routines such as Acting, Dancing, Fire-Eating, Juggling, Poetry...and the like. It would have been interesting if these "routines" were to have actually bestowed more proficiencies in specific talents. This would have also gone a way towards making the Entertainer background a more mechanically viable choice for a bard...even if ever so slightly... as opposed to being mostly redundant while providing a feature that really could have just been role-played out by the bard anyways.
Once again, there is enough overlap that I would personally allow speeches to fall under persuasion and for acting to fall under deception...but, should it need to be more fine tuned...it seems that adding specific talent proficiencies could be the way to go.

Once again, though....what I'm trying to do is ADD to the experience as opposed to taking away. I believe that by removing the Performance Skill from the list and instead more readily associating performances with tools and/or talent proficiencies...you walk away with a character who can both perform in their field when it's required AND have a more generally useful skill. Perhaps when the performance skill is given freely, I would allow the character to gain 3 talent proficiencies instead. For example...the Drunken Master Monk provides the performance skill. I would maybe grant the character a dancing proficiency or something similar...along with maybe 2 other tool/talent proficiencies of their choice. Same goes for Bladesinger. Since Monks and Wizards aren't known for having tons of room to always boost Charisma... this would also help separate the stat from the proficiency in players' minds. (Even though the game works on the premise of choosing the stat first and the skill proficiency second...many players only look at the stat next to the skill on their character sheet and then roll with it. This type of thing could help alleviate some of that...since tool proficiencies have no readily available stat mod slapped on them.)

I'm typing all of this up as someone who loves the bard class and the ability to perform when needed. I'm DMing a campaign in which there are currently 2 bards...and I keep noticing how unfortunate it is that the Swords bard doesn't have a skill like either Athletics or Acrobatics...simply because they felt the need to keep the fluff of the class intact and have the performance skill. They would like at least one of those skills...but, they can't get either of them because of feeling the need to keep the fluff.

However...performance doesn't seem to come up enough to justify this. I'm even using this thread's very own Ninja_Prawn's musical adventuring rules...well... a lot of them. (There's quite the musical duel looming on the horizon between one of the musicians and their rival.) However, even in the case of this supplement I feel that all the musical calls for performance checks can simply be replaced by Musical Instrument Proficiency and either the Dex or Charisma mod.

I know that some in this thread have pushed to go even farther and really consolidate a lot of the skills. I don't know that I'd go that far in some instances...although I do allow weird interactions.... like I allow druids to always perform nature checks using wisdom just to encourage the fact that they really should be the nature experts more so than the other classes.
I will say.... I also like Tanarii's suggestion about tying the Medicine skill and Healing Kit together in some way.


But, really...the core of all my questioning here is whether or not changing things about the performance skill will throw things out of whack. I want to get rid of the skill altogether and base it around tool proficiencies...but, for all practical purposes....for those of you who think performance has a cemented and vital place in the skill system....imagine I gave bards the performance skill for free...since that's essentially what's happening. Yes...it's a slight buff...but, is it enough of one to make a difference? I realize that the bard is already a strong class...but, will one additional skill really tip the scales? That's what I'm trying to find out here. Is doing this just completely unfair power-wise? Or is it so negligible a power-boost that it's almost inconsequential? Additionally...what if something similar was done for Wizards? What if Wizards were given the Arcana skill for free as a way of entering the class? To me...a bard isn't a bard if they can't perform something .... and a wizard is no true wizard if they don't at least have some knowledge of the arcane.

[Tanarii]

Floorlock check out Xamathar's for additional rules regarding tools, in particular with regards to combining them with a skill. (The generic rule if you advantage and proficiency.)

I don't think removing it as a skill will throw anything out of whack unless you have a campaign where Performance checks are common.


But can the DM say to the player that wants to play the violin with no proficiency "sorry, your character doesn't know how to play any musical instrument at all, he doesn't even know where to start"? I say yes. Yes of course, although preferably in agreement with the player. Since the player usually has a better idea of what they think the character can do. If I said that to a player and they told me "of course I know the basics of how to play a musical instrument, everyone would have basic skills with at least one in this era" then unless I've established that to be untrue, I'd be willing to change my mind on it.


And I don't think the same applies to a character who attempts a Cha (performance) check. Anyone of sufficient high charisma who goes on stage has a good chance of entertaining people, without any special focus.Of course it applies to Charisma (Performance), with or without proficiency in the skill. Not every character necessarily knows how to sing, dance, tell stories, juggle, tumble, jest, and act.

Now if you, as a DM, are okay with players saying "I entertain the audience to (accomplish X)" as a statement of approach as well as intent, and can determine appropriate outcomes and consequences from it ... then sure, Cha check away.

[Floorlock]

Floorlock check out Xamathar's for additional rules regarding tools, in particular with regards to combining them with a skill. (The generic rule if you advantage and proficiency.)

I don't think removing it as a skill will throw anything out of whack unless you have a campaign where Performance checks are common.


Oh, I've never gotten to really dive into that section of Xanathar's. Would you say that it especially fleshes out all of the tool use?

We use d&d beyond...so for the most part our interaction with Xanathar's was making sure that we had all of the subclasses and everything.

To be fair, I still don't think I would use that as a general rule. I don't typically want to give out blanket advantage all the time. I feel that if it worked off of the tool proficiency only.... it'd be easier to adjudicate when and where to give out advantage as it'd just work like everything else in the game. Like... if you have already spread rumors of your greatness before arrival...or if you've particularly caught the romantic attention of your listener, or you've made certain to sabotage a rival who played before you to make yourself look better... I just usually like to have a concrete reasoning behind a character's advantage.

However....eh. I don't know. I'm a musician in real life as well....and it's hard to imagine typically rolling a 1 unless I was randomly REALLY cracking under the pressure of some sort of performance. And advantage should protect you from 1s...which should make sense for anyone who regularly plays a particular instrument....barring the obvious potential of just the world's worst set of circumstances.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Woah. This is intense. Isn't there another D20 game with a really intense skill system? In 5e I get tons of ppl to play but they really don't seem to love paperwork that much.

On a side note I once had a drunk Cleric roll a Performance check with disadvantage after an evening with a bit of a well meaning, slightly gold digging barmaid.

[diplomancer]

Floorlock ]

Yes of course, although preferably in agreement with the player. Since the player usually has a better idea of what they think the character can do. If I said that to a player and they told me "of course I know the basics of how to play a musical instrument, everyone would have basic skills with at least one in this era" then unless I've established that to be untrue, I'd be willing to change my mind on it.

I don't think a player gets to make a general statement about the world "everyone would have basic skills with at least one in this era". I find the idea that all adventurers would have basic skill with musical instruments but not Thieves' Tools decidedly odd. And it's always the DM who decides if a check is apropriate. The DM can easily answer to the player with no musical instrument proficiency who attempts to play an instrument with "the crowd jeers and throws eggs and rotten tomatoes at you", perhaps prefaced with the perennial DM warning "are you sure?"

Also note that, if having proficiency in the musical instrument is not necessary to attempt to play it, that means that ALL people have basic training in ALL instruments , and the same applies to all other tools EXCEPT Thieves' Tools or, after Xanathar, Artisan's Tools, even though, in the PHB tools text, they all get the exact same writing. I don' think there ever was any "era" when that was true.


Of course it applies to Charisma (Performance), with or without proficiency in the skill. Not every character necessarily knows how to sing, dance, tell stories, juggle, tumble, jest, and act.

Now if you, as a DM, are okay with players saying "I entertain the audience to (accomplish X)" as a statement of approach as well as intent, and can determine appropriate outcomes and consequences from it ... then sure, Cha check away.

A high Cha person definitely can entertain an audience by telling stories, without any specific training in the ins and outs of storytelling, he has an intuitive grasp of it (which is why he's somewhat persuasive even if he's not proficient in persuasion).
So yes, an attempt to entertain an audience is a charisma check to which you can add your proficiency bonus if you have performance, but which anyone can attempt without it. Even a low cha, untrained person can attempt it, and if he's lucky (rolls really well), whatever he did proved entertaining to the audience (probably the audience was already in a very good mood)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So, would anyone object to turning Medicine and Performance into tool proficiencies? Since Medicine is niche, even as forensics, it makes sense that a Medicine Kit proficiency is less valuable a skill than the broader Investigation.

Me.

You may not know how to play an instrument, but you can at least make it look like you do (while someone else plays to the side).

You can be technically skilled at something, but not get people to like you.

It'a the difference between playing War Pigs with no emotion and playing it with emotion AND a knowing to start the initial guitar riff as the curtain rises.

Edit

Also for medicine... Int check, not wis, and make it where spells aren't a blanket. If you want to use a spell to cure something, you need to know exactly what you are curing.

[Tanarii]

Also note that, if having proficiency in the musical instrument is not necessary to attempt to play it, that means that ALL people have basic training in ALL instruments , and the same applies to all other tools EXCEPT Thieves' Tools or, after Xanathar, Artisan's Tools, even though, in the PHB tools text, they all get the exact same writing. I don' think there ever was any "era" when that was true.
That does not follow. A character cannot make a check for something that is impossible for them. Just because there is a system to resolve a check if a character knows how to do the thing at the basic level (ability score modifier), doesn't automatically mean every character knows how to do every thing.

What characters know how to do is mostly up to the player, and somewhat up to the DM. As the player knows best what their character might or might not know at the most basic level, and the DM can put the brakes on, especially if players are claiming their character can do every thing.

Something like "can I play X instrument" seems like a player/DM point of negotiation to me. Certainly as much as "can I sing" or "can I juggle".

[diplomancer]

That does not follow. A character cannot make a check for something that is impossible for them. Just because there is a system to resolve a check if a character knows how to do the thing at the basic level (ability score modifier), doesn't automatically mean every character knows how to do every thing.

This is my point exactly. Whether someone has the ability to use a tool with which he's not proficient is a DM call (I'd say anyone can try to come up with a disguise, for instance. I would not let anyone play any instrument that they say "I feel my character can play it", "I feel my urchin character, who's never left his city in his background story, has a basic training on using navigator's tools", "I feel my Lawful Good character has basic training on how to brew poisons" or, before Xanathar, "I feel my character knows how to make a sword"). But anyone can try to entertain an audience. And singing in tune is something FAR more simple than playing an instrument. Most people learn it without any special training, unless they have a really bad ear, enough to try and entertain an audience. Singing WELL, with proper technique, and in tune, takes some training- performance skill in this case. Some singing -like opera- is so specialized that I can see a DM treating it as a tool.

The other problem related with letting people roll for tool use without having proficiency is the very large difference of success rate between a well trained and a poorly trained person regarding tools (assuming in the beginning that they were trained at all), which the skill/proficiency system does not model well at all (though it does model skills better).

What's the DC of playing a simple song? A well trained person will play it 100% of the time (with small quality differences in any particular execution of it), a poorly trained person will fail. It's not possible to model that with d20+ability+proficiency, no matter what DC you set (if you set it too high, to guarantee the failure of the poorly trained person, the well trained person will fail sometimes. If you set it too low, the poorly trained person will succeed far more often than he ought to) Correct way of modeling it is to tell the well trained person "you succeed" (optionally, also "let's roll a d20 to see how well you did it" -where even a nat 1 would mean success, but maybe you were too distracted and made a few stupid mistakes) and to the poorly trained or untrained person "you fail".

Finally, nowhere in the PHB it is stated that you CAN try to use a tool in which you are not proficient by making a naked ability check. It just says that if you are proficient, you add your proficiency to any check the DM calls for. There is no rule about what to do if you are not proficient. It's a DM call.

[Tanarii]

Well, since we both think it's a Player/DM call, I guess we're mostly in agreement. Except ...
And singing in tune is something FAR more simple than playing an instrument. Most people learn it without any special training, unless they have a really bad ear, enough to try and entertain an audience.I guess this is our only real point of contention. I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, in a world of Karaoke Bars and Rock Band, this has been definitely proven: while most people think they can sing, almost no one can actually sing, even at a basic level. :smallamused:

[Theodoxus]

Well, since we both think it's a Player/DM call, I guess we're mostly in agreement. Except ...I guess this is our only real point of contention. I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, in a world of Karaoke Bars and Rock Band, this has been definitely proven: while most people think they can sing, almost no one can actually sing, even at a basic level. :smallamused:

This is the reason I don't go to "rock" concerts. With over production on everything, most "singers" rely on tech to make them sound good instead of doing the hard work. Listening to modern live music tends to be very jarring to my ears.

Having gone to a music conservatory in elementary school, where everyone learned the basics of each major instrument group, I can say learning at least one instrument well isn't too hard, if you're given the opportunity. I definitely found musical instruments were much easier to match and stay in tune than singing in a chorus - and I loved singing...

[diplomancer]

Well, since we both think it's a Player/DM call, I guess we're mostly in agreement. Except ...I guess this is our only real point of contention. I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, in a world of Karaoke Bars and Rock Band, this has been definitely proven: while most people think they can sing, almost no one can actually sing, even at a basic level. :smallamused:

Poisoned condition gives disadvantage on ability checks :smallamused: (but it might be that I am just lucky with my friends...)

Give me an hour with someone and I will very likely be able to teach them to sing relatively in tune, though obviously the vocal range of many songs will still be beyond them, that would take proficiency. And I've known many people who could sing alright without any training at all, just from listening to music. Give me an hour with someone at the piano (the one instrument I know how to play), and they will still be, at best, playing one-handed.

[Tanarii]

Poisoned condition gives disadvantage on ability checks :smallamused: (but it might be that I am just lucky with my friends...)Either that, or y'all failed your disadvantaged Wisdom (Self awareness) checks, and every one else around y'all is feeling unlucky. :smalltongue:

[opaopajr]

It's up to you to make it interesting. e.g. Decoys are part deception but also part performance. Further a skill is not locked onto an ability. So just like Athletics can be ran off Charisma, Performance can be ran off of Strength -- whether which one is Michael Jordan and the other is the Harlem Globetrotters is up to you. :smallcool:

Similarly I do not see people use Tools all that creatively, and often let gear or features wholly override potential. But I assume this is merely people building up their GM-ing up to speed. Perhaps later on people will become more creative. :smallsmile: For some they just remove Skills, Tools, etc. entirely and things work fine running off of ability scores. It's there to make GM-ing life easier when you want it.

[tchntm43]

I think a lot of the skills are campaign-dependent as far as how much use they see. Some of them don't really have combat applications at all, and if the DM and players have decided what kind of campaign they want to play, they should agree that certain skills can be safely ignored because they won't come up.

I try to create situations where my characters can use their skills, even stuff like Performance. We had the Bard actually make use of his disguise kit recently, on another character (Had the Bard roll for the check only when the character actually had to pretend to be someone else in front of NPCs, and when the check failed it was quite entertaining).