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

[Scott Christian]

The assessment of whether "Intimidate" is the worst skill in Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition is subjective, as it depends on various factors, including campaign style, character build, and the Dungeon Master's storytelling approach. Here are a few points I think we need to keep in mind:

1. Versatility: Intimidate can be used in social encounters to deter or manipulate NPCs. While it may not have as many applications as skills like "Persuasion" or "Deception," it can still be valuable in certain situations. (And indeed, it might be able to be used more depending on how you look at it. I mean, we all picture the PHB picture, but maybe it can be more subtle than that. Is a dad's glare intimidation or persuasion? It doesn't necessarily make the child hate their dad just because they caught "the glare."

2. Role-Playing Opportunities: Intimidate offers a lot of role-playing opportunities. A character with high Intimidation might be the group's enforcer or the one who negotiates through fear. This can add depth to the story and create memorable moments.

3. Campaign Style: In a campaign that heavily focuses on combat and dungeon crawling, social skills like Intimidate might see less use, making them appear less useful. However, in a more intrigue-based campaign, it can be incredibly valuable.

4. Character Build: For some character builds, intimidate can be super-effective. Think barbarian or warrior.

5. DM Flexibility: The effectiveness of Intimidate also relies on the Dungeon Master's interpretation. A creative DM might reward a well-executed Intimidation attempt with unexpected benefits or steer the story in interesting directions.

So, while intimidate may not be as universally applicable as some other skills (and, to be fair, there is an argument it is just as applicable), it certainly has its place in the game. Its utility greatly depends on the campaign's focus and the player's creativity in using it. Additionally, it's essential to remember that this is a collaborative storytelling game, and skills like intimidate can lead to memorable moments and exciting character development. Whether it's the "worst" skill or not is ultimately a matter of personal preference and campaign context.

 

[BrettC001]

Part of the problem is using the skill as an absolute.

For example, the characters uses intimidation to shut down a fight. It’s up to the DM to decide the result. If you’ve got a boss character the target could be VERY high, or the result might be that the opponent is at disadvantage until they roll a hit, some tier penalty that still allows the encounter to continue.

 

[MGibster]

The entire 5e skill system is a train wreck.

I find the skills work just fine most of the time. But like many other games, social skills are just a bit more complicated in play. I don't care how high your character's Persuasion roll is, that lich isn't going to turn over a new leaf and devote his unlife to running an animal shelter or becoming headmaster of a magical academy for children who were orphaned at the hands of his relentless, unholy horde of monsters. Likewise, I don't care how well a lich rolls on his Persuasion roll, he's not going to convince PCs of the health benefits of eating orphaned children.

 

[jayoungr]

The reason is that Intimidate will usually make things worse in 75% of the time you try to use it to force someone to do something. If you fail you usually shut down the entire social encounter right then and there, and even if you do succeed, that NPC is probably gonna hate you for quite a while. It's almost always a bad idea unless you're dealing with someone you're ready to fight.

At best it can be used to make enemies surrender and cut down the 'mopping up' phase of combat?

In my experience, Intimidate is most often used after the fight is over, to get captured enemies to talk. They already have a negative opinion of you, so there's no loss there.

(Haven't read all 17 pages, so apologies if this is repeating what others have already said.)

 

[Mannahnin]

I find the skills work just fine most of the time. But like many other games, social skills are just a bit more complicated in play. I don't care how high your character's Persuasion roll is, that lich isn't going to turn over a new leaf and devote his unlife to running an animal shelter or becoming headmaster of a magical academy for children who were orphaned at the hands of his relentless, unholy horde of monsters. Likewise, I don't care how well a lich rolls on his Persuasion roll, he's not going to convince PCs of the health benefits of eating orphaned children.

Hey, maybe he's changed his mind since August of 2020.

Remember, too, that the social rules in the DMG did account for exactly what you're talking about.

 

[Steampunkette]

Intimidation is great in two situations:

1) You're playing an absolute jerk.
2) You're willing to double down and take the risks.

I loved playing a rampaging jerk of a hero the one time I did it back in 200...2? 3? Somewhere in there. She was smart, strong, and sure, and good at heart, but she was -not- nice. Half-orc raised by pirates and thieves, smugglers and cutthroats. And she went around with the swagger of the biggest baddest baddie in town. She knew it. So did everyone else. Backgrounds weren't a thing at the time, but she'd -absolutely- have the "Bad Reputation" background trait if they did.

She was rude, callous, and more than willing to be vicious at the drop of a hat, but people tolerated her because she'd get stuff DONE. Fast. Well. And Final. Plus she had good goals even if she wasn't nice.

I used intimidation exclusively. And yeah, sometimes it backfired and her low Charisma got her into trouble, but I'd double down with a threat of imminent violence or outright draw my weapon and start fighting for a round or two before trying, again, to make an intimidation check after landing a hit.

Usually worked out pretty great, and I made a lot of frenemies that way 'cause I'd take the information or aid I demanded and do good things with it. Hated but respected is a whole thing!

But it requires your DM to be willing to go for "Hated but Respected".

Be that DM.

 

[Steampunkette]

Also it occurs to me that it's both funny and weirdly prophetic that none of us had Social Skills back in AD&D...

Oh, sure, you had the Etiquette nonweapon proficiency. But deception, intimidation, and persuasion? Diplomacy? Not a thing.

 

[Gradine]

It also doesn't hurt that I can't ask my current players to make a Deception roll without them breaking into song:

 

[Bae'zel]

I basically view Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation as all the same output: a character getting something that they want from a NPC through dialogue.

The difference is the consequence of success and failure for each approach.

1. Persuading someone will win them over and maybe even reduce some antagonism. Until they are persuaded in the opposite way, I can't see any severe negative consequences for failure or success.

2. Deception, however, will create antagonism if or when the NPC realized they were deceived, obviously. A reduction in reputation with them. Mistrust and betrayal. Might not lead to violence, but it could lead to some retaliation!

3. Intimidation is a funny one because it creates fear and potentially resentment. A failure could make you appear LESS intimidating, less threatening. Could even make you look foolish. Either way, a reduction in reputation and respect. On a strong success, however, you've created an enemy; if they get a chance to "get even" or turn the tables, I'm sure that they will. Unless you keep on intimidating them. Ravenloft Peasants are intimidated PERMANENTLY, it seems.

Persuasion is like the Light Side of the Force; Deception and Intimidation the Dark Side (quicker, faster, more seductive) but the consequences are more dire, either way, right?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Whilst intimidation might create resentment, it is not given. It depends on the circumstances.