That's what I love about this edition the most, the power the DM has. What would you think intimidate would do in combat? Does one really need an explicit rule for this? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to open up a constructive dialogue.
How would I know what intimidate should do in combat? I don't get into fights. I have no experience or basis on which to decide. I also have no experience or basis on which to decide how magic works. That's why the rules exist: to provide a framework for things we humans in the real world have no experience of.
Easy. Make it up. Make rulings. You're the DM - you tell the game what to do, rather than the reverse.
How? On what basis? What do I choose? How do I justify the choice? I play an RPG instead of doing freeform makebelieve so that there's structure. Taking away the structure means it's no longer a game. I
don't want to be a game designer but 5e makes me one.
In short - it's intentional in 5e that the game as played at your table isn't expected to be exactly the same as Bob's down the street or Mary's at your FLGS. The rules provide the framework that you then flesh out to make your game yours.
It's the opposite philosohy from 3e or PF, where there's a rule for everything.
This is the crux of my issue. I play 3.x every week and love it. When I compare the 3.x games I'm in to the 5e game I'm trying to run, the 5e game feels like a collapsing scaffold of toothpicks compared to the impregnable stone fortress of 3.x. It's not even that the foundation is bad;
there is no foundation. I want consistency, I want predictability, and 5e doesn't offer it. As I said above, 5e makes the DM into a game designer and I desperately don't want to be one, because I'm bad at it and I know it.
As for ideas about what might be achievable - Many of the fighters maneuvers could be couched as an effect achievable via intimidation pushing, distracting, menacing, goading for example maybe even a trip or commanders strike. (evasive footwork becomes menacing glare which darts from enemy to enemy as they attempt to hit you)
What does all of that mean in game terms? How does it work? The ideas are great, but it doesn't tell me how to adjudicate actions.
I think the issue is assuming that Intimidate does anything different in combat then it does out-of-combat. The results of the social skills have always been for the DM to adjudicate.
This is wrong. Here's the Intimidate skill description for 3.5 for in-combat use:
d20 SRD said:
Demoralize Opponent
You can also use Intimidate to weaken an opponent’s resolve in combat. To do so, make an Intimidate check opposed by the target’s modified level check (see above). If you win, the target becomes shaken for 1 round. A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. You can intimidate only an opponent that you threaten in melee combat and that can see you.
This is a mechanical,
quantifiable, description of what the skill does and how to use it. Meanwhile, here's the entire text of the skill description for 5e:
5e PHB said:
When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision.
There's no description of what kind of action it is, if it even is an action, what the effects are, how long they last, nothing. That specific use of the skill in 3.5 has more words than the entire description in fifth. This is the kind of detail that I want. "use your intuition" / "use your judgement" / "make a ruling" aren't helpful when there's no guidance on developing that intuition or judgement or any suggestions on what the ruling should be. I had to make a ruling on the spot when my player did this and, because there's no suggestions on what to do, how to handle the situation, I gave him something so powerful it broke encounters. 3.5 provides specific,
balanced (mostly) rules for the things my players want to do. 5e leaves me to make things up without providing any of the support needed to understand how to do so.
I'm not sure what you were going to say after "That", but yes, I absolutely do prefer 3.5, for reasons that should be clear from the rest of the post. 5e is like tossing your infant into the ocean and telling them to swim. 3.5 pairs you with an Olympic swimming coach.