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

[EzekielRaiden]

3e was better...

Even 5e is better.

No. Neither is better than 4e. Both are dramatically worse, albeit in radically different ways. That doesn't mean the 4e one was perfect, it wasn't, but it was most assuredly better.

The irony is that 5e's skill system actually resembles 4e more than any other! But the 5e culture of play makes it almost as bad as the 3e version even when the books explicitly say not to do those things. The DMs running it runnit like it was 3e, even when that is actively detrimental to the experience. I still to this day have no explanation for why this happens, but I'm not the only one to have noticed this problem.

 

[I'm A Banana]

4e had the best and only working skill system of any D&D, D&D-like, or D&D clone

Maybe. Though, I'd consider that damning with faint praise. The 4e system was a big improvement on 3e to my mind, but there's a few huge glaring weaknesses, and skill powers was one of those weaknesses. Can't have something outside the Powers system, gotta make skills relevant by making everything useful as a combat option. It always felt like something of an attempt to get away from the skills system itself to me, which is a good instinct. It just couldn't escape the confines of the Powers. And it still couldn't solve the problems that Bounded Accuracy helped solve.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No. Neither is better than 4e. Both are dramatically worse, albeit in radically different ways. That doesn't mean the 4e one was perfect, it wasn't, but it was most assuredly better.

The irony is that 5e's skill system actually resembles 4e more than any other! But the 5e culture of play makes it almost as bad as the 3e version even when the books explicitly say not to do those things. The DMs running it runnit like it was 3e, even when that is actively detrimental to the experience. I still to this day have no explanation for why this happens, but I'm not the only one to have noticed this problem.

I think we need to agree to disagree. 4e was busted in the skills regard.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think we need to agree to disagree. 4e was busted in the skills regard.

What about it made it "busted"? It's likely we will not agree. I'm just curious why you think it was so bad, when the nickel-and-diming skill points system (which horrendously punished several classes while richly rewarding the ones that didn't need more rewards) of 3e, and the vague-nothing of 5e (plus the horrendous way the culture-of-play uses its rules), seem facially so, so much worse.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Better than trying to contain all check DC between 10 and 20, failing, and removing or not assigning 90% of the static DCs sane numbers if at all in order to chase the goal on small number modifiers...

Nope. Terrible. Containing skills in the 10 to 20 ramge was how I fixed 3e skill system myself. Once I noticed that that was probably the oroginal design intend all along, suddenly the system worked great.

...
...
...
then failing at it.

I mean that's why this topic exists.

5e's skill system created an Intimidate skill because it wanted to have one to look at and point to.
However it went out of its way to not explain what the point of an Intimidation skill is, how its plays, how it differs from other skills in the game, story, or world.

You use it with the influence action. How much do you need to know about what intimidating someone does?

Nowhere is it explained how exactly you jump or swing your sword...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What about it made it "busted"? It's likely we will not agree. I'm just curious why you think it was so bad, when the nickel-and-diming skill points system (which horrendously punished several classes while richly rewarding the ones that didn't need more rewards) of 3e, and the vague-nothing of 5e (plus the horrendous way the culture-of-play uses its rules), seem facially so, so much worse.

Look at the skill challenges table. Look at the original one. Look at the revised one.
Look at improvising actions. All that mess could have been avoided if skills did not increase with half level.

Also as a player never knowing what the target numbers were, AC, skill DC by looking at what the imagined world looks like. In 4e all was just painting and meaningless. Because DCs were just based on your level.
So progression felt terrible because leveling up made you feel become worse, not better.

Here in enworld towards the end of 4e there were a few people who created a mod that removes half level bonus from everything. And suddenly the game worked better.

 

[Minigiant]

Maybe. Though, I'd consider that damning with faint praise. The 4e system was a big improvement on 3e to my mind, but there's a few huge glaring weaknesses, and skill powers was one of those weaknesses. Can't have something outside the Powers system, gotta make skills relevant by making everything useful as a combat option. It always felt like something of an attempt to get away from the skills system itself to me, which is a good instinct. It just couldn't escape the confines of the Powers. And it still couldn't solve the problems that Bounded Accuracy helped solve.

But isn't that the whole point of this thread.

4e realized that skills that are solely designed foe 1 pillar of play are:

1. Are weakened when that pillar lessened
2. Are useless when that pillar is ignored
3. Are too strong when that pillar is focused on
4. Compete with other single pillar skills in that single pillar

So 4e made Intimidate have a Combat use and a Social Use and defined a sliver but useful bit of those rules.
Making them power ensured that the designers thought about skills and informed players and DMs what each skill did.

 

[Distracted DM]

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.

I'm trying to remember how my DM ran it back then but I can't- I want to say roll under charisma.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Look at the skill challenges table. Look at the original one. Look at the revised one.
Look at improvising actions. All that mess could have been avoided if skills did not increase with half level.

Yeah, we'll never agree if your core issue is the half-level bonus. Having the half-level bonus was, IMO, one of the best features of the system, not something bad. The skill challenges came out half-baked to start with, I'll certainly grant you that, but that's not the skill system in its entirety--that's one specific, albeit important, application that got corrected.

Also as a player never knowing what the target numbers were, AC, skill DC by looking at what the imagined world looks like. In 4e all was just painting and meaningless. Because DCs were just based on your level.

No, they weren't. This is a straight-up falsehood, often repeated but simply false. 4e has plenty of fixed DCs for things. It just also provides guidance for how to pick appropriate DCs when there isn't already a predefined one.

So progression felt terrible because leveling up made you feel become worse, not better.

Unlike 3e and 5e, where levelling up actually does make you become worse, not better?

Here in enworld towards the end of 4e there were a few people who created a mod that removes half level bonus from everything. And suddenly the game worked better.

I'd need to actually see it, but to put it bluntly, I straight-up don't believe that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It just couldn't escape the confines of the Powers.

This is like saying that 5e things cannot escape the confines of "actions."

"Powers" ARE actions--specifically, predefined ones. Any (predefined) actions! Even literally just making an attack is a power!