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

[Maxperson]

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.

The 5e PHB defines it. It says very clearly what it's about. The word itself has meaning beyond that and the game uses the common use of words. If he doesn't know what it's about, then I probably can't help him. It's very clear.

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.

Nothing of the examples would automatically result in someone hating you, and possibly not even disliking you. They won't like you, but there are many other uses that fall under the common meaning of intimidation that also won't cause hate. If the DM defaulting to hate as the result for all uses of intimidate, that's lazy DMing in my opinion.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The 5e PHB defines it. It says very clearly what it's about. The word itself has meaning beyond that and the game uses the common use of words. If he doesn't know what it's about, then I probably can't help him. It's very clear.

Nothing of the examples would automatically result in someone hating you, and possibly not even disliking you. They won't like you, but there are many other uses that fall under the common meaning of intimidation that also won't cause hate. If the DM defaulting to hate as the result for all uses of intimidate, that's lazy DMing in my opinion.

"There can't possibly be anything wrong with depending on the DM for everything. Wait, some DMs are being lazy about it? Well that's bad DMing! The rules couldn't possibly be at fault!"

I don't accept this argument, and I sincerely doubt that I ever will.

 

[Maxperson]

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.


And that's exactly what 4e has.


And that's exactly what 4e has.


That's not what was actually said.

The table shown several posts back shows that a door encountered by a PC of 10th level is harder than an equivalent door encountered at 1st level. It does happen in 4e. Same "difficulty" door, two different DCs based on level.

 

[Maxperson]

"There can't possibly be anything wrong with depending on the DM for everything.

I don't depend on the DM when I use the skill. I tell him who I am intimidating and how I am doing it.

Wait, some DMs are being lazy about it? Well that's bad DMing! The rules couldn't possibly be at fault!"

It's not at fault. Nothing there says or implies that the skill always or even almost always ends in hate or even dislike. Nothing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The table shown several posts back shows that a door encountered by a PC of 10th level is harder than an equivalent door encountered at 1st level. It does happen in 4e. Same "difficulty" door, two different DCs based on level.

No, it doesn't. I provided the table of DCs for doors of various materials. What table are you speaking of?

 

[Maxperson]

No, it doesn't. I provided the table of DCs for doors of various materials. What table are you speaking of?

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

They're just victims of the in-house drive-by. I smell hyperbole. That being said, intimidate is persuasion, and should be included in that skill. I don't agree that it should be included in persuasion. While the person being intimidated is being "persuaded," instilling fear to get results...

www.enworld.org

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

They're just victims of the in-house drive-by. I smell hyperbole. That being said, intimidate is persuasion, and should be included in that skill. I don't agree that it should be included in persuasion. While the person being intimidated is being "persuaded," instilling fear to get results...

www.enworld.org

That's the table which tells you the DCs for something based on the encounter level. As I explicitly said to them. It is not, and has never been, based on character level.

And here's the table I provided, which explicitly proves that your door example is wrong.

No, it isn't. The page you are referring to is when the DM has to INVENT a new DC for something that didn't already have one. It is not for deciding whether the wooden door in front of the players is a level 30 wooden door or a level 2 wooden door. Because, even in the 4e DMG, doors had specific, defined DCs (4e DMG page 64):

Strength Check to...	DC
Break down wooden door	13
Break down reinforced door	16
Break down barred door	20
Break down iron door	23
Break down adamantine door	27
Break through force portal	30
Force open wooden portcullis	21
Force open iron portcullis	28
Force open adamantine portcullis	35

So you are just, straight-up, wrong.

Checks to pick locks were defined by tier, which is again a function of encounter level ("is the encounter level 1-10? then it has DC 20"), not character level. Exactly the way that 5e defines, for instance, the danger level of traps by tier (1-4, 5-10, 11-16, 17-20), or how monster damage, saves, AC, etc. are a function of the intended CR of the creature (or you try to figure out the CR based on its stats, though even at the best of times this is hit or miss.)

 

[Maxperson]

That's the table which tells you the DCs for something based on the encounter level. As I explicitly said to them. It is not, and has never been, based on character level.

Not according to the book. I just checked and it gives an example of basing it on character level.

Example: Shiera the 8th-level rogue wants to try the classic swashbuckling move of swinging on a chandelier and kicking an ogre in the chest on her way down to the ground, hoping to push the ogre into the brazier of burning coals behind it. An Acrobatics check seems reasonable.
This sort of action is exactly the kind of thinking you want to encourage, so you pick a moderate DC: The table says DC 14."

That has zero to do with the encounter level and everything to do with character level. Had a 1st level PC tried the exact same thing, the DC would have been 12.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not according to the book. I just checked and it gives an example of basing it on character level.

Example: Shiera the 8th-level rogue wants to try the classic swashbuckling move of swinging on a chandelier and kicking an ogre in the chest on her way down to the ground, hoping to push the ogre into the brazier of burning coals behind it. An Acrobatics check seems reasonable.
This sort of action is exactly the kind of thinking you want to encourage, so you pick a moderate DC: The table says DC 14."

That has zero to do with the encounter level and everything to do with character level. Had a 1st level PC tried the exact same thing, the DC would have been 12.

Yes, it has zero to do with the encounter level. Because the action is about whether that character can successfully swing. Which should--one would expect--have basically the same chances of happening regardless of character level. It's not like you're trying to swing on a rope that's on fire or something.

Every example you gave before this specifically operated on the logic of something in the world somehow bending and flexing to adapt to the character's level. That doesn't happen in 4e. It never has, the books tell you NOT to do that, and they do so repeatedly across several different sections.

Pull the other one.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Earlier in the thread, someone posted a clip from Star Trek, and either in that same post, or in a post later, someone mentioned that the Intimidation action can be used to get people to work together. And that example is buzzing around in my head.

See, I know exactly the type of thing they are talking about. The big loud bully who has been ignoring the reasonable requests of the Main Characters finally getting shouted down and humbled by that character. But... notice a problem here? This, EXPLICITLY, is a story beat that happens after persuasion has failed and while a bully who intimidates others is forced to back down to do something reasonable. The Star Trek clip, though I'm not familiar with the episode, was pretty explicit as an example. Data walks in, knocks out all the guards, blows up a station and says "I can ruin this entire place. The enemy coming to kill you all is stronger. Staying is an obvious death sentence." and the leader of the group... is intimidated. But that wasn't the first thing Data tried, was it? It was a last resort to get people to see reason who refused to see reason.

And also... where would you have the check be? Would you have him roll intimidation to knock out the guards? To fire his weapon and destroy a pipeline stretching miles up into the mountains? And at the point he has beaten all the warriors and destroyed major infrastructure... what's the point of rolling for the speech?

This I think gets to a truer problem with Intimidation than just that it causes people to hate you. It only works on those weaker than you, or those you can convince that they are weaker than you. You cannot intimidate Thanos into handing over the Infinity Gauntlet, because you will never convince him that he is weaker than you. You can't intimidate the Dread Knight into backing down from the fight, because he is not convinced you are so much stronger that he has no hope of victory. And so you have a skill that is only really used to punch down... or to deceive. Because isn't it deception to convince someone of a lie such as Wesley's "to the pain" speech?

Intimidation is just so very narrow in when it should be possible to use, that it feels worth so much less.