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

[Maxperson]

That's not the way I do it. I would always assess the difficulty without respect to the PCs at all. If the chandelier was already within reach because it was tied up for cleaning it's DC 10. If it requires a jump to reach it's DC 15.

This means that low level characters are prone to pratfalls. Only medium-high level characters can do this sort of thing reliably. I assume movie swashbucklers are at least tier 2.

As in the session I mentioned earlier, talking your way past the palace guards is hard (DC 20) the player was only able to do it because they were level 11 and heavily invested in Charisma, Persuasion and Deception (and happened to roll well).

In which edition(s)? That quote was from 4e, where DCs scale by level. I run challenges the same way you do, but I skipped 4e.

 

[Maxperson]

NNnnnnnnnope! What is "hard" at level 1 is not hard at level 20--and thus DCs go up as you gain levels.

That's correct. What is hard at level 1 is not hard at level 20, nor should it be. The problem is that 4e raises the DC so that instead of the level 1 DC now being easy to overcome, it's still hard. There's no point in gaining bonuses per level or every other level in 4e with that kind of scaling.

They're constantly redefined in 3e and 5e too! That's what I'm telling you! It's YOUR HOUSERULE which makes "hard" this bizarre fixed number, and thus actually easier at level 20 than it is at level 1 (if and only if you have a good stat and/or proficiency/expertise).

There is no redefinition in 5e for DCs. The easy, moderate, hard, etc. descriptors in the context of average Joe's. Joe the baker is going to find the DC 20 hard task to be hard. The expertise rogue with +15 is not going to find it hard, even though it's still a DC 20 hard task.

 

[Clint_L]

Yes. I stopped scaling the world around my players. If somene had a +10 to hide, I stopped building NPCs with +10 perception.
I did not start using DC 30 challenges at level 10 so your Character feels as incomeptent as they were at level 1. I used 20 or max 25 usually.

And I also encouraged to use take 10 and take 20. So even if PCs face a DC 30 check at level 5, they can still do it if their bonus is +8 and circumstances are good given enough time.

Maybe I was simplifying it too much. But the genereal Idea that saved 3e for me was stopping to scale everything with the best in classs.

Do you do this with battles, too? Like, at level 10 are they still facing the final boss and it's an ogre? If not, why is scaling the world around your players for battles okay, but not other types of challenges?

I assume that the types of challenges a level 10 party is facing are going to be harder, because the players are more powerful. At level 1, they might be breaking into the bandit's warehouse, but by level 10 they are breaking into the vault of a criminal mastermind. And it makes sense that the vault is going to be much more challenging, doesn't it? Like, the level 1 novice wouldn't have a shot at the vault, and the level 10 expert couldn't be arsed about the crummy warehouse.

As well, from a narrative perspective, what's the point of having obstacles that...aren't really obstacles? I don't get it. Why not just skip them altogether? Why am I going to waste game time on something that is trivial?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In which edition(s)? That quote was from 4e, where DCs scale by level. I run challenges the same way you do, but I skipped 4e.

5e mostly. 1st-2nd didn't have skills, I mostly skipped 3rd, and completely skipped 4e.

I've done it that way in other RPGs with skills though, such as Traveller and Star Wars D6.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I think you need to look again. The book clearly says, "7th–9th 8 14 19" Or maybe they changed it at some point

this is from the post you provided. i uh...i don't know what to tell you.

 

[Minigiant]

I think you are generalizing too much.

Not really.

Most complaints against skill challenges were addressed in the DMG. And most of the rest were address in the following DMGs.
People just looked at the table, though they got it, and proceeded to mess up.
This is why skill challenges in 5e don't work. They are framed as the wrong way to do it in 4e in the 5e DMG.

Like many never read that a PC could only use a secondary skill once each.
Many never read that you can you could and should tell your players example approaches and skills to use.

Like the DMG gives a Negotiation Skill Challenge example

You could easily make a Skill Challenge where Diplomacy and Intimidation are primary but use of Bluff causes an instant failure by by making the noble cowardly but insightful instead of resolute and gullible.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Do you do this with battles, too? Like, at level 10 are they still facing the final boss and it's an ogre? If not, why is scaling the world around your players for battles okay, but not other types of challenges?

I actually used a level 1 side quest in PotA for level 5 characters. And it scared the hell out of them...

but my point is not using ogres at level 10 as the final boss.
But they still make fine minions.

Also if I build my final boss, if there is a character with +15 stealth in the party, I don't give them +20 perception to counteract. And then add another rogue with +20 stealth in the mix to show the rogue how incompetent they are if they think just increasing stealth at max level brings them anywhere near good scores (they need to have at least 3 magic items that add +5 bonus to actually let them do anything useful).

I assume that the types of challenges a level 10 party is facing are going to be harder, because the players are more powerful. At level 1, they might be breaking into the bandit's warehouse, but by level 10 they are breaking into the vault of a criminal mastermind.

Yes. But even they are not all having stealth and perception that is higher than what the party rogue can muster. The rogue who specializes in a skill should feel that their abilities can match the best of them.

And it makes sense that the vault is going to be much more challenging, doesn't it? Like, the level 1 novice wouldn't have a shot at the vault, and the level 10 expert couldn't be arsed about the crummy warehouse.

But the difference in 4e is that everyone got 1/2 level bonus. So now even some level 10 person who never learnt anything about breaking in warhouses can now suddenly pick those locks or sneak in easily.

As well, from a narrative perspective, what's the point of having obstacles that...aren't really obstacles? I don't get it.

Becaus sometimes it is important to allow players and their characters to feel competent. To actually feel progression.
If you are constantly faced withs challenges that you only have a 50% chance to succeed at, why should your scores go up at all. Why not just using coin flips forever?

Why not just skip them altogether? Why am I going to waste game time on something that is trivial?

If you think allowing your players to feel that they are competent is a waste if game time at your table, skip those.

I think a bigger waste of game time is always using equal level challenges, because those are the encounters that actually take a long time to resolve.

So if I want fun encounters, I try to use rather low level challenges.

This has the added benefit of relieveing pressure from your players to always optimize their characters.
Stop always using hard encounterd and suddenly PCs may play and act as PCs and not as board figures that always do the best tactics.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not really.

Most complaints against skill challenges were addressed in the DMG. And most of the rest were address in the following DMGs.
People just looked at the table, though they got it, and proceeded to mess up.

No. There is an undrlying prolem: half level bonus for everyone.

This is why skill challenges in 5e don't work. They are framed as the wrong way to do it in 4e in the 5e DMG.

Maybe.

Like many never read that a PC could only use a secondary skill once each.
Many never read that you can you could and should tell your players example approaches and skills to use.

Yes. I know. I did not like that either. And my players did not like that too.

Like the DMG gives a Negotiation Skill Challenge example

You could easily make a Skill Challenge where Diplomacy and Intimidation are primary but use of Bluff causes an instant failure by by making the noble cowardly but insightful instead of resolute and gullible.

I know them. And on top of all the narrative issues we had, it also did not help that the math was unsound in core 4e (better in essentials).

 

[Minigiant]

No. There is an undrlying prolem: half level bonus for everyone.

Not really, mechanically.

Training was +5
Focus was +3
Your Primary mod at +2 to +4 and increases by +2 each tier
Your Secondary mod at +1 to +3 and increases by +2 each tier

So before level bonus your traineded skills could be +6 to +12 over untrained.

The level bonus only mattered when dealing with encounter a tier up or down.

IF narratively it was a bother, you could remove or lessen the level bonus to PCs and DCs.
That's what I thought 5e was going to do.

 

[Minigiant]

But the difference in 4e is that everyone got 1/2 level bonus. So now even some level 10 person who never learnt anything about breaking in warhouses can now suddenly pick those locks or sneak in easily.

4e was built on the pre2e assumption that PCs all dabble in all adventuring skills in downtime so there were no skills. Fighters can pick locks in offtime and wizard can freehand climb on the weekend.

It was 3e that introduced the idea that if you didn't specifically train in something, you suuuuuuuuuuuccckkked at it.