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

[Maxperson]

So the DC to perceive if Asmodeus is lying to you is the same as the DC to tell if a village child is lying to you?

No, but then that's not scaling DC. The DC to detect his lies will always be the same for 1st level PCs and 20th level PCs. The DCs don't change. DCs having a range is not the same as changing the DC based on the level of the PC.

 

[Maxperson]

"It's obviously shaped like itself" is both true and useless.

Odd that I find lots of use for it then. It's far from useless.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, but then that's not scaling DC. The DC to detect his lies will always be the same for 1st level PCs and 20th level PCs. The DCs don't change. DCs having a range is not the same as changing the DC based on the level of the PC.

....yes, it absolutely IS scaling DC.

It is DC that scales with the difficulty of the challenge. The thing @UngeheuerLich spoke of is DCs that do not scale AT ALL. Ever. For any reason.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Odd that I find lots of use for it then. It's far from useless.

You misunderstand what I'm saying. "Intimidate is for intimidating" is like saying "Cinnamon sticks taste like cinnamon" or "This bell sounds very bell-like." It's a totally useless description because it is using the word itself to define it. You have communicated nothing whatever by saying that intimidate is for intimidation--if someone doesn't already know what "intimidate" means, they don't know what "intimidation" means either.

 

[GMMichael]

I don't agree that it should be included in persuasion. While the person being intimidated is being "persuaded," instilling fear to get results is very different from talking someone down from the ledge. People good at one are not automatically good at the other.

Sure, you're entitled to a stand-alone skill called "intimidate." But then I'm entitled to a Swimming and a Running skill, instead of "Athletics". . . A combined "persuade" skill should be used for talking someone down from the ledge. Whether the target is fearful, confused, or flattered afterward should be up to the player.

The skill functions if the GM is willing to have the skill actually do something, but it has no actionable rules.

This means not only that the skill is seriously prone to GM-fiat issues, but also that a player can never know exactly what you can do with it.

Doesn't rule zero suggest that everything is prone to GM-fiat issues?

The only reliable way to do that is using magic, because magic has rules.

Note that vaguely defined skills are not a problem by itself. Fate and similar systems handle them very well. The problem is when you combine vague skills with extremely specific and potent spells.

I see the difference. But I don't buy that Intimidate is a bad (if subsumable) skill just because there might be a magic spell that moves a target 60 feet or makes that target have a -4 penalty on attacks for a round. I will buy the idea that D&D doesn't blend the two well.

Of course, the OTHER problem with Intimidation is that it’s a social skill where the GM can decide that other guy in your group who mechanically is nonproficient and has a -1 CHA bonus gets to succeed without making a check because they RP’d good at being threatening.

There is the slight issue that good role-playing enhances the game for all, while good roll-play doesn't. (Proof: no amount of good rolling can save Yahtzee or Backgammon.) But this "problem" isn't unique to Intimidate.

 

[Maxperson]

....yes, it absolutely IS scaling DC.

No, it's absolutely not. Scaling DC is the exact same lock being DC 10 at 1st level, DC 15 at 5th level, DC 20 at 10th level, etc. That is scaling DC as in it scales with the PC levels. Being able to set a static DC is not scaling, since the PC level is 100% irrelevant to setting it and once set, it stays that DC unless some outside force improves or weakens it.

It is DC that scales with the difficulty of the challenge.

Nope. If it did, then a 1st level PC could detect Asmodeus's lies just the same as the 20th level PC. A DC 10 door is going to be DC 10 for the 30th level PC as well. That's not scaling DCs.

The thing @UngeheuerLich spoke of is DCs that do not scale AT ALL. Ever. For any reason.

Right. He's talking about how it works in 3e. You set the DC and it does not change with PC level. If I set a DC 15 for something when you are 5th level, it's going to be the same DC 15 when you are 8th, 12th and 20th level.

I also doubt he truly means/meant "for any reason." I suspect that if there was a DC 20 to break a door and you had a wood rot potion, the DC to break it would drop drastically. Outside forces can alter DCs, but absent that sort of event, the DC will remain static and completely unattached to level.

 

[Maxperson]

You misunderstand what I'm saying. "Intimidate is for intimidating" is like saying "Cinnamon sticks taste like cinnamon" or "This bell sounds very bell-like." It's a totally useless description because it is using the word itself to define it. You have communicated nothing whatever by saying that intimidate is for intimidation--if someone doesn't already know what "intimidate" means, they don't know what "intimidation" means either.

Intimidation is defined, though. We know what it means and how it can be used. Why do I have to list all the ways to use it when we all know them?

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, you're entitled to a stand-alone skill called "intimidate." But then I'm entitled to a Swimming and a Running skill, instead of "Athletics". . . A combined "persuade" skill should be used for talking someone down from the ledge. Whether the target is fearful, confused, or flattered afterward should be up to the player.

Agreed. I hate that they are bundled into Athletics. My desert nomad who has never seen a body of water big enough to swim in, but can climb and run like the wind, MUST be great at swimming as well. Even though he's never learned or been in water large enough to swim in.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, it's absolutely not. Scaling DC is the exact same lock being DC 10 at 1st level, DC 15 at 5th level, DC 20 at 10th level, etc. That is scaling DC as in it scales with the PC levels. Being able to set a static DC is not scaling, since the PC level is 100% irrelevant to setting it and once set, it stays that DC unless some outside force improves or weakens it.

Then the thing you describe

DOES.

NOT.

HAPPEN.

In 4e.

The books DO NOT say to do this. They explicitly say to NOT do this.

Nope. If it did, then a 1st level PC could detect Asmodeus's lies just the same as the 20th level PC. A DC 10 door is going to be DC 10 for the 30th level PC as well. That's not scaling DCs.

And that's exactly what 4e has.

Right. He's talking about how it works in 3e. You set the DC and it does not change with PC level. If I set a DC 15 for something when you are 5th level, it's going to be the same DC 15 when you are 8th, 12th and 20th level.

And that's exactly what 4e has.

I also doubt he truly means/meant "for any reason." I suspect that if there was a DC 20 to break a door and you had a wood rot potion, the DC to break it would drop drastically. Outside forces can alter DCs, but absent that sort of event, the DC will remain static and completely unattached to level.

That's not what was actually said.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Intimidation is defined, though. We know what it means and how it can be used. Why do I have to list all the ways to use it when we all know them?

The whole point is that it is NOT defined, Max. You were responding to someone who explicitly said, "I don't actually know what 'Intimidate' is supposed to be about," albeit in their own words. They DON'T know what it's supposed to be for, and honestly, I'm not entirely sure I do either.

Because, as I said, the books pretty strongly position it as "this is the skill that 100% always makes people hate you for using it." No, they don't explicitly say such. But the examples they list are all things that would, reasonably, make a person hate you in addition to fearing you, and not one of them is an example of something that would make no sense as causing hatred. Meanwhile, both Bluff and Diplomacy/Persuasion have both positive and negative uses, can clearly result in someone having a durable positive attitude toward you OR negative OR anything else, really.

So, no, I don't buy that the circular definition actually accomplishes anything.