D&D 5E Is Intimidate the worse skill in the game?

[Warpiglet-7]

FWIW D&D 5E does have a morale system (DMG, p. 272):

View attachment 124669
View attachment 124670
Otherwise, uses of Intimidation to get a force to give up etc. would be a contested roll IMO: Charisma (Intimidation) vs. Wisdom (Insight). If the Charisma (Intimidation) wins, I would have the losing side make the same DC 10 Wisdom save (under morale) or flee/surrender.

really nice find. I am going to start using this! I have a bad tendency to ignore optional rules...

 

[Undrave]

There is no way for an NPC to tell what level a character is.

I mean you'd use your level as a number to add to an intimidation roll as a general short hand for your power level instead of being specifically a skill.

 

[DND_Reborn]

really nice find. I am going to start using this! I have a bad tendency to ignore optional rules...

Thanks. We actually use this a lot and it makes things more... realistic?

One option we've also done is make the DC 10 Wisdom save have a DC equal to 8 + the intimidation modifier (prof if available + STA/CHA mod) because DC 10 seems low for us.

 

[Li Shenron]

The entire 5e skill system is a train wreck.

Only because no one wants to drive

Seriously, the 5e skill system is not a wreck but it is definitely open-ended, and that means it is not self-driving. The DM must decide where to go with it.

If you look at Critical Role, you will notice that Matt Mercer asks for a lot of skill checks without letting the rules minutiae (like what the DMG suggests for secret doors) get in his way. At the same time his players get along well with it, because they don't start using "logic" to exploit the system, for example asking to try again over and over because the RAW doesn't say you can't, or wanting their unskilled PC do something that another more skilled PC has just failed, because 2 rolls are better than 1. That would be logical, right? Except that this kind of logical thinking is the real cause of the wreck, and forces the DM to add much more robust but complicated house rules which make the game heavier. It's understandable that some people prefer heavy robust rules instead of soft and easy ones, but why did 5e choose the latter? Because WE asked for it in 2 years of open playtesting. Like it or not, this open-ended simplicity was chosen by the community.

Now if WotC doesn't want even after 6 years to provide a module for the other camp, I am happy that someone else is stepping in to fill the void. Maybe I can be persuaded to switch to it when it comes out, but I have been able so far to use the soft default system without much problem. The point is, it did require me to "drive" / exert some control over things such as retries, untrained attempts, and using passive scores and groups checks differently than the DMG suggestions.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Thanks. We actually use this a lot and it makes things more... realistic?

One option we've also done is make the DC 10 Wisdom save have a DC equal to 8 + the intimidation modifier (prof if available + STA/CHA mod) because DC 10 seems low for us.

well in some situations it does. I know some fights are no quarter but in others you capture for ransom or whatever. Prisoners do get taken.

I like it. But going this route should cut both ways. Characters could also surrender at times leading to interesting scrnarios of escape and survival.

 

[DND_Reborn]

well in some situations it does. I know some fights are no quarter but in others you capture for ransom or whatever. Prisoners do get taken.

I like it. But going this route should cut both ways. Characters could also surrender at times leading to interesting scrnarios of escape and survival.

Hopefully players should realize when the fight is beyond them and surrender.

But, the DM can simply rule a save is failed or apply disadvantage if a force is obviously superior. As for the players, a die roll shouldn't determine what characters must do, but neither should players treat PCs like they have a death wish.

My biggest issue with escape/survival after surrender is I have to have a valid reason why the monsters would keep the PCs alive? Otherwise, surrender becomes a death sentence anyway... shrug

 

[Chaosmancer]

What if the guard is an A-hole and doesn't give a damn about the average begging peons that happen to wander the streets?

Wouldn't that be represented by failing the Persuasion check?

Could always be bluffing. Yeah, sure, it looks like the phylactery, but if he shows no signs of being threatening, he may not have to guts to do it or the skill to do it quick enough for them to yield. If the dracolich goes first, he may be able to just escape with it.

Right... the guy powerful enough to get the Dracoliches real phylactery (because the Dracolich better be able to recognize his own soul without a check) may not have the guts or skill to destroy it before the Dracolich can get it away.

Considering the Dracolich could literally out live the guy's entire lineage if the phylactery is kept intact.... that seems like a very dumb line of thought. What sort of evil mastermind thinks that the good guys won't have the stones to kill them. Especially in a DnD world

Potato farmers are dumb. Sure, they may see your shiny armor and your flaming sword and think "wow, this guy is really strong, maybe I shouldn't mess with him." But they may also see your shiny armor and flaming sword and think "yeah, if I go right for the neck, I think I can take him." Like the idiots people are.

.... Well. you are right. That is incredibly stupid.

Guess that is why all those commoners come out to stab the orcish invaders and fight alongside the PCs at level 5, because they totally think they can take a man in full armor with a magic sword, who has killed literally hundreds of monsters.

I think you're missing a key component:

You do not care how people feel about you when you intimidate people. You aren't here to make friends, you're here to get what you want and leave. Whatever strength these peasants could muster up to face you is not enough to persuade you. They aren't going to gain enough power to be a problem. You can take out their whole village if need be. The king or presiding noble isn't going to do anything about it because he doesn't care about the common rabble enough to bat an eye. They probably do, but the stupid commoners don't know that. They probably only know the nobility from the knights that tax them every couple of moons.

If you're good-aligned, you're not often going to use intimidation for the reasons you gave. But you needn't always be good-aligned. There's nothing wrong with scaring a few weaklings to have them know your place.

Right, this is what I call Stupid Evil.

If you have an organization and you want to terrify the populace into working, then you are going to have to have public executions. Because someone is going to stand up and protest. Now you are killing your own workforce.

And sure, they listen, and they fear you... which means the moment they think they have a real shot at it, they will betray you. Because they want you gone, so when the seedy man starts spreading rumors that he can kill you, all he needs is access to the kitchen... well, that isn't going to be nearly as hard for him as it could have been.


Yes, I know that historically tyranical individuals have held power for long stretches of time, but that is always an unstable base. And there is no need for it. Literally. You are choosing to do this for no other reason than to flex a skill proficiency.

Drill sergeants regularly seem to do okay and soldiers seem to be pretty loyal while respecting them. R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket seems to be an example of doing this the wrong way like you said.

Every time a boss calls you into a meeting for a performance review without presenting the facts upfront and then laying out a way that you might have screwed up and the costs of future failure while setting expectations for future performance, that sounds like Intimidate to me. Even just a boss peering over your shoulder as you work or asking to be walked through the steps of a job could be a form of Intimidation by their presence and the comfort level of the person they're around.

Military discipline is an entirely different thing. That generally comes from both a competive spirit (not being left behind the group) and the fact that you are serving your nation.

You are much more dealing with a factory floor boss, and I wouldn't say that the boss calling you in and laying out all the things you might have done wrong is really an intimidation, unless there is an underlying threat involved in it. Like them losing their job.

"Your majesty, if you don't support our expedition, we will destroy your empire".
"Your majesty, if you don't support our expedition, the rival kingdom will destroy your empire".

Why can't the second one be also a use of Intimidation?

Maybe it is, but it could also be persuasion. And since persuasion is more useful overall, I'd want to argue it is part of the larger skill, not the smaller one.

To use Intimidate, you need two things:

1. Knowledge of what someone fears
2. Leverage

Most people use it as "I can physically harm you, tell me what you want." That's a very narrow use of Intimidation.

A bouncer can Intimidate you to not start trouble in the bar for a few reasons. Most people aren't prone to violence and the threat of violence will cow them but another reason why a bouncer is intimidating is:
1. You're in the bar for a reason and you don't want to get kicked out. That's what you fear (maybe you're looking for info from patrons.)
2. Bouncer isn't only big and scary, the owner had given him permission to use violence. That's his leverage. So, he can leverage his 'toughness' to get you to behave without a fight because a person knows that, even if you win the fight, the bouncer will be backed by the guard and you'll still get kicked out of the bar.

@Chaosmancer mentioned the lich. A lich can be Intimidated by an 8th level character.
1. A lich fears that his phylactery will get destroyed.
2. Leverage that: "I know where your Phylactery is and I've given the info to someone. If you don't let the prisoners go, and you kill me, that person is going to tell the Death Knight where it is.

Intimidation with no threat of violence at all (blackmail): A crooked Merchant selling watered-down potions
1. fears getting caught by his guild.
2. Give me a discount on good potions or I'm going to tell the guild you're selling fake, watered-down potions.

In any case, without leverage, Intimidation is useless.


Edit: I see some of my points were already make
Also, regarding leverage. This is also why Insight is such a useful skill. It's also useful when using deception because some lies are easier than others (lower DCs) and knowing your opponent makes things easier.

Right, but here is the problem, the more leverage you have, the less likely it is you need to roll.

For the Lich example to work, you need 1) to have found the phylactery location (and not used that information yourself), 2) Given that information to another NPC 3) That NPC needs to have a desire to see your goals and not just the Lich's death (ie they aren't going to betray you) 4) they need to be able to find the Death Knight 5) There needs to be a Death Knight who wants to kill the Lich and can access the Lich's Phylactery and 6) That Death Knight needs to not kill your NPC informant on sight.

You have set up a multi-stage, elaborate triple blind information drop, to get the chance to use a single skill. And, you are in complete control if you actually know the Lich's real phylactery location.

And this gets deeper, what if you are lying about your leverage? Do I have to succeed on a deception then an intimidation? To know the right things to to say is it Insight, Deception, Intimidation. Why am I three rolls deep before I get to use this?

And in the potion seller example... what if they aren't a cheater? What if your leverage is threatening his shop, or his family. Now again, you are teetering into Evil territory. Is your Barbarian really going to threaten to kill the man's wife and child just to get a discount?

It's not nearly as simple as all that. The threat of smashing the phylactery is a one-shot deal: If you do it, the dracolich dies, but you get nothing for your trouble.

So the dracolich still has leverage. Obviously it has to give you something--if it simply stonewalls you, you'll smash the phylactery since you get nothing either way. But how much does it give you? What commands does it obey, and what commands does it refuse? If it refuses one command while obeying others, will you kill it for that and lose this valuable servant?

On top of that, what happens when you're not there to oversee it? If you send the dracolich to do a task, does it think it can get away with disobedience once you're out of sight? Or is it too afraid that you will find out and destroy it in punishment?

That's where Intimidate is useful. You want the dracolich to think that you are always on the edge of smashing the phylactery, and any hint of disobedience on its part could push you over. If it thinks you are reasonably reluctant to destroy such a potent asset, it can push back a lot harder.

So if you fail the roll, your dracolich servant is just more disobedient? I mean, I wasn't expecting him to be a whipped dog no matter how high I rolled, so again, what is the point of the roll?

I mean, why does getting an 18 on intimidation decide that I know it is too scared to disobey (and isn't just fooling me)? How does an 18 on intimidation compare to a 15, does that mean he'll disobey more than he already was for being an ancient and arrogant being whom I'm trying to threaten into serving me?

Where is the line were it doesn't try to kill me anymore, using it's magic to casting sending to assassins to come after me?


Really, it sounds like the skill in this scenario is just being used for a barometer of how much trouble you get in the future, but you already succeeded. And failing this check now... doesn't mean you won't succeed in the future, so even a bad roll is nothing to really care about here.

 

[Dausuul]

So if you fail the roll, your dracolich servant is just more disobedient?

Yes. That is exactly correct.

I mean, I wasn't expecting him to be a whipped dog no matter how high I rolled, so again, what is the point of the roll?

To determine if your dracolich servant is more or less obedient. You just answered this question yourself, why are you asking it again?

I mean, why does getting an 18 on intimidation decide that I know it is too scared to disobey (and isn't just fooling me)? How does an 18 on intimidation compare to a 15, does that mean he'll disobey more than he already was for being an ancient and arrogant being whom I'm trying to threaten into serving me?

Where is the line were it doesn't try to kill me anymore, using it's magic to casting sending to assassins to come after me?

The line is exactly the same place it is for every other skill check in the game: Wherever the DM says it is. Why should Intimidate be any different?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes. That is exactly correct.

To determine if your dracolich servant is more or less obedient. You just answered this question yourself, why are you asking it again?

The line is exactly the same place it is for every other skill check in the game: Wherever the DM says it is. Why should Intimidate be any different?

So, persuasion or deception can be used to gain me new allies, get resources I otherwise could not achieve, and shape the course of the game.

Intimidate can be used to see how disobiedient my defeated enemy might be in serving me.


Or, let me put it this way, to really highlight the problem I'm seeing.

Persuasion or Deception are used at the start or middle of an adventure, to get things moving.

Intimidate is used at the end of the adventure, to facilitate the end credits. It didn't come into play until after the Dracolich was already defeated and serving us, and is only a barometer for how surly it is until I make my next intimidation check to keep it in line. It didn't help us achieve any goals, because having the phylactery means the dracolich serves us. Full stop. The skill is only being used to determine how well it serves us.


And, once more, I stand by my statement. This use of intimidation is a stronger party dealing with a weaker foe. The dracolich is defeated. We can kill it at our whim. It could not be intimidated until we had it at our mercy. If we didn't hold the phylactery, we could not intimidate it.

And a skill that only works against the weak and defeated... is less useful.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Thanks. We actually use this a lot and it makes things more... realistic?

One option we've also done is make the DC 10 Wisdom save have a DC equal to 8 + the intimidation modifier (prof if available + STA/CHA mod) because DC 10 seems low for us.

I've thought about using this, but with the passive charisma-based score of the enemy leader - ie, the passive intimidation of the bugbear who runs the goblin tribe. Who are these guys more afraid of right now?