D&D 5E Perform Skill & Instrument Proficiency redundancy

[Beleriphon]

I like to look at it this way, if you'll pardon a few real world examples. Robert Plant has proficiency in Performance since he can sing without use of any tools (and there's more to what he does then belting out a turne during a show). While a guy like Slash is proficient in Instrument (Electric Guitar), since he by and large doesn't do much more than play the instrument with a high degree of skill.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

As long as players know ahead of time that a Background that gives tool proficiencies is less valuable than one that gives direct skills.

You can pick up any tool prof with a few hundred gold if you have a year to spend. Which people should do after their first adventure?

Not an issue, since backgrounds always provide 2 skills, and then 2 tools (or languages). Backgrounds are customizable without being breakable by design. You can literally mix and match any two skills, any two tools (or languages), any feature, and any equipment set and it's pretty much equivalent as far as game balance.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My guess is that it's the difference between a super-broad and cannot be easily obtained "skill" vs. a much more narrow and more easily obtained "tool" proficiency. In other words: yes, taking "perform" means you don't need 3 instrument proficiencies. The reverse isn't true. But you can learn a lute a lot easier than you can get "perform" proficiency.

Just a guess.

DING DING DING.

Skills are a "better" proficiency than tools. They apply to more situations, you can't have them taken away, and they are generally more useful. If you know Perform, it doesn't matter if you're stripped naked and gagged with your fingers cut off, you can use that skill. Skills define you as a character, and as such are not something you can get really after 1st level (feats aside).

Tools are narrow and relevant to specific items. They can be taken away, made irrelevant, broken, etc. They're easy to pick up (downtime!), and so they're easy to add into an ongoing game. They're less valuable, which means they're more flexible.

If you have proficiency with an instrument, you can play that instrument, and that is that.

 

[Gradine]

I see it as another one of those disconnects that only exist because of an inability to disassociate 5e from earlier editions' mechanics. If you've spent so long existing in a paradigm where there is no difference between Perform(acting) and Perform(guitar), it makes it harder to understand why there is now this big difference.

The gulf between skills and tools in 5e took me a while to get used to, and it was in understanding the difference between Perform as a skill and instrument tool proficiency that finally allowed me to wrap my head around it. There have been a lot of examples about the differences in this thread, here is the one that makes the most sense to me:

It's the difference between a shy, awkward, eleven-year-old classical pianist, and a dueling pianist. One has the dexterity and skill to master an instrument, the other has the natural charisma of a performer.

I don't have the PHB in front of me, but I'd imagine that Perform is the integral skill for their class functions. You could be the best damn guitarist in the world, but if you lack that commanding presence, that ability to connect with and inspire your audience, you are no Bard.