D&D 5E Perform Skill: What's it good for?

[Werebat]

Made a gnome evoker with a Cha of 12 and proficiency in the Perform skill. His concept is that he is a brilliant alchemist and mage with the Sage background (DM is letting me use alchemic fluff like powders and elixirs as my "focus" for spellcasting) who is sort of unassuming most of the time but enjoys putting on flashy performances of fire magic, and has developed a persona for said performances.

He can shoot targets with the flame damage cantrip, use spells like Pyrotechnics, Control Flames, etc. as well as his Evoker abilities to, say, shoot Burning Hands at an audience volunteer and leave them UNSCATHED by the flames! Huzzah!

Anyway, I was looking over the Perform skill, and I don't see that it actually DOES anything for you mechanically. At all.

No rules about performing during downtime to earn extra cash, not even rules about how impressive various levels of performance are. Just nothing. Zip.

I could get behind it being up to the DM what it can accomplish, but I do find it odd that there seems to be NO mechanical benefit whatsoever in being good at this skill. Or am I missing something?

 

[vandaexpress]

I would probably argue that it counts, if nothing else, as a profession for the purposes of earning money during downtime.

 

[tuxgeo]

It's well-hidden, but under the heading of "Downtime Activities," the third and final paragraph of the "Practicing a Profession" subsection (on the final page of chapter 8) states that having Performance proficiency, and using that proficiency to perform during downtime, allows you to "earn enough to support a wealthy lifestyle instead."

Chapter 5: Equipment states that a "wealthy lifestyle" costs a character 4 gold pieces per day, so these two pieces of information combined would appear to say you would earn about that much by doing that.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

In-game, Performance can also be great for creating a distraction, or even smoothing things over socially. It's the kind of skill that can thrive on player and/or DM creativity.

 

[Larrin]

It lets you force the DM to give you a trivial amount of gold for roleplaying your bard in a tavern. And that will make you feel like a rockstar, and the DM will be happy you're roleplaying for once, so its a win-win skill.

 

[discosoc]

There's gold to be made during downtime. It's also great for RP scenarios, and can be used mechanically with a little creativity. The classic "I'm going to distract the mark by enthralling the tavern in song and dance while the rogue pick pockets (or kills, etc) him." At the very least, it would make the sneaking/killing/stealing easier to do.

I think part of the problem is that deception gets used to much, when performance is probably a better fit.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Any time there is a crowd, the Perform skill might be appropriate. It is the skill of street preachers and of politicians, not just bards and buskers. Perform can be used to settle down (or rile up) a mob. It can also be used to read a crowd, to gauge their feelings and intentions.

If the players were facing off against a bully in a tavern, trying to avoid a fight, I'd use Perform if the player's approach included appealing to the crowd.

 

[iserith]

When you are trying to delight an audience with some form of entertainment - and the outcome of your show is uncertain - the DM may ask for a Charisma (Performance) check. If you couch your demonstration more in terms of skill with magic which is arguably based on your smarts as a spellcaster, the DM might call for an Intelligence (Performance) check, if the DM goes in for the variant rules regarding this. Typically, these sorts of fictional actions will be done in the context of engaging with the social interaction pillar.

Whether you think the proficiency is worth taking comes down to your goal and approach, whether you think your DM will rule the result uncertain, and the frequency with which you will perform. If your DM is one to call for a Performance check anytime something you do vaguely smells like a Performance check would apply (i.e. it's always going to be uncertain) or if it's common for players to ask to make ability checks at your table, then it's a good proficiency to take. If the DM balances out ruling outright success or failure versus making ability checks and the players don't ask to make ability checks at your table, it is less valuable, but still useful for those times when uncertainty rears its ugly head.

 

[Celtavian]

A DM might allow you to substitute performance for other skills like Deception (acting) or Persuasion (oratory). Besides making a comfortable living, it's up to the DM how useful it can be.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I would use perform as the "manipulate crowds or entertain someone" skill, but I tend to be very forgiving with social skills and what effect you want to achieve.

Essentially if you are telling an untruth, deception. If you are trying to make the target fearful of something, intimidate. If you are trying to make the target take a specific action, persuade. If the target is a crowd or your goal is to entertain, perform.

Look through the list and pick any that fit the circumstance. Which means that telling a crowd that they need to clear the streets because a rampaging orc horde is coming when they are not can use any social skill.

In effect, any character with any social skill has a way to achieve whatever outcome they want, and the only real difference is how they get there.

This is primarily caused by the existing set of social skills being poorly designed.