D&D 5E (2014) Is Intimidate the worse skill in the game?

[Crimson Longinus]

It is "the worst", not "the worse".

"Worst" is a superlative. That comes after "the". "Worse" is the comparative as in "4e skills are worse than 5e ones".

Thank you! The title of the thread bugs me every time I see it.

 

[Maxperson]

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...
...
...
...
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.

I mean,

"Intimidation. 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."

How much more of an explanation do you need? It then explains persuasion and it's very clear that persuasion is a different skill with different uses. Same with deception.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I smell hyperbole. That being said, intimidate is persuasion, and should be included in that skill.

Slight hyperbole. It's had this problem in nearly every edition (4e being the major exception, as Intimidate was the way to do what early-editions would have called "Morale checks" to cow enemies into surrender.)

Basically, Intimidate is seen as the Bad Guy Persuasion Skill. It almost invariably makes the target hate you, which, as anyone who has actually read Machiavelli should know, is the single most important thing to avoid doing. If you truly must choose between being feared (=respected/understood that you will carry through on your promised punishments) and being loved (=revered/understood that you will carry through on your promised rewards), then being feared is narrowly more reliable, but you absolutely must avoid becoming hated. If you become hated, people will actively accept burdens and suffering in order to hurt you. This is the critical lesson that every "take that!" story at Machiavelli always fails to note.

The problem is, DMs hear Intimidate and they think "ah, yes, the skill that makes people do what you want, and then hate you afterward." Any skill predicated on that description will always be a long-term dud, because it is predicated on leaving an ever-growing string of people who hate you and want to take you down a peg or three.

I blame Acquisitions Incorporated. And/or the 5e WotC staff that carried over from 3e, some setting the tone from the top. Old habits die hard, after all.

The funny thing is, Mike Mearls did work on 4e. That said, much of what I have heard has indicated...something more or less like what you describe, regarding Mr. Mearls' work on 4e, that he basically never accepted any of its internal premises and always tried to force it into being 3e, which...generally did not have good results.

I mean,

"Intimidation. 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."

How much more of an explanation do you need? It then explains persuasion and it's very clear that persuasion is a different skill with different uses. Same with deception.

See above. The description does nothing to help, and in fact significantly encourages DMs to think of Intimidate as "Persuasion, except it always makes people hate you." Such an interpretation turns Intimidate into being an always-losing proposition--you just might get some minor and/or temporary benefits along with earning a permanent enemy.

 

[Maxperson]

See above. The description does nothing to help, and in fact significantly encourages DMs to think of Intimidate as "Persuasion, except it always makes people hate you." Such an interpretation turns Intimidate into being an always-losing proposition--you just might get some minor and/or temporary benefits along with earning a permanent enemy.

I don't agree. See my post on uses of intimidation that I've seen that don't do that. It 100% does not always make people hate you. Hell, they probably won't hate you even a majority of the time. The might dislike. They might hate. They might be indifferent. They might become friends or allies. Circumstances vary tremendously.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't agree. See my post on uses of intimidation that I've seen that don't do that. It 100% does not always make people hate you. Hell, they probably won't hate you even a majority of the time. The might dislike. They might hate. They might be indifferent. They might become friends or allies. Circumstances vary tremendously.

So, real talk.

What are we supposed to favor? The things that the text says, even if DMs widely ignore it? Or the things DMs do, even if the text says not to?

 

[Steampunkette]

4e's social skills were not "Better" than 5e's or 3e's.

They were more narrowly defined into powers, sure. Giving you specific uses for it that the rules gave a structure for that DMs largely accepted.

But even then, the issue remained one between DM and Player, not Rules and DM or Rules and Player.

Both DM and Player are always going to have their own experiences with intimidation. Whether that's as a bully or a victim, boss or employee, or other power dynamic that is going to inform their, personal, interpretation of what intimidation looks like and the 'appropriate' response to it, as filtered through a given bartender or peasant or villain or whatever.

And because most people are the victims of an abusive power dynamic at SOME point in their lives, that interpretation is typically one that is upsetting and often outright defiant because the consequences in a game are much lower than a real world bloody lip or getting fired or being thrown out on the street or whatever.

What D&D needs for Intimidation to work well is a sidebar. Not skill powers or some magical function of rules that will suddenly make it "Better".

Something that basically says "The DC for Intimidation should almost always be lower than the DC of Persuasion or Deception, but it typically comes with a negative consequence to reputation and occasionally betrayal or harm at a later date." instead of every third NPC having a vastly higher Intimidation DC than Persuasion because "They don't take guff from anyone" or whatever.

Problem basically solved.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The half-level to skills thing was one of the things I disliked about 4e. Adventures don't become +10 better at forging weapons and armor without having ever tried just because they are 20th level. They probably don't even become +1 better, but some small synergy increase might be warranted.

 

[Maxperson]

So, real talk.

What are we supposed to favor? The things that the text says, even if DMs widely ignore it? Or the things DMs do, even if the text says not to?

I don't understand this. What text says anything about always hating the PCs afterwards? What rule prevents a situation from turning to friendship afterwards?

 

[I'm A Banana]

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!

There's a family similarity, for sure, especially in 2024's revision, but "action" is a much broader and less strictly defined group of verbs in practice.

Actions and powers aren't the things that a skill system is really meant to support, anyway- they're combat language. And skills have primarily been "what your character does instead of combat" since 2e's proficiency system. Rolling a skill back into combat kind of misses the point of a skill system.

Like, I've got no real problem with skill powers, they're just not actually a better skill system, since they are only really concerned with being useful in a fight. Compare 5e's feats, for instance, which usually have at least some combat boost (an ability score increase at least, in 2024), but also can be more than just a combat boost. I could be sold on the idea that feats are a better skill system than skills!

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.

I don't think Intimidate needs a combat use in order to not be weak or useless or too strong.

When I'm building a character, I pick Intimidate as a skill as a characterization. Not a gameplay strategy. I'm saying, "My character is good at intimidating people!"

The failure of the skill system, in all editions, 4e included, is then that it is not actually fun or usefeul in gameplay to intimidate people, unless your DM is going to fix it. It's ABOUT the social gameplay.

I don't need to be able to use a combat action to intimidate someone by applying the Frightened condition as part of a 3 or 10 round fight in order to satisfy that characterization. It doesn't hurt, but it's not why I'm choosing the option at chargen. It's not really the fantasy that I have for that characterization. I need a combat ability like I need to be able to use my Longsword proficiency to make a Nature check. I need to be able to have that intimidation be useful in a social context, as part of roleplaying.

And no edition of D&D has been able to really solve that problem. Weirdly, 2e NWPs were better at solving that problem than anything since 2000 (and it was not a great system). 5e feats get a little closer, but the skill system itself still has those flaws. Where I have a fantasy I want to realize (My character is very intimidating!) and the gameplay fails to realize it (I guess I can bully some captives? Maybe spend my action to apply Frightened to someone for 6 seconds?)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The half-level to skills thing was one of the things I disliked about 4e. Adventures don't become +10 better at forging weapons and armor without having ever tried just because they are 20th level. They probably don't even become +1 better, but some small synergy increase might be warranted.

What makes you think they never try?