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

[Bae'zel]

Which raises the question: WHY do you need 3 « this is how nature works » skills? You don’t need separate Religion skills for different religions, or for rites and rituals versus knowledge of the undead, or for ministering to your flock. Same thing but more for Arcana.

Some skills are parsed incredibly broad. You want to climb a wall? Same skill as the long jump. Some are incredibly narrow. What do you know about bears? Depends. If it’s knowing to play dead, it’s Nature. Unless it’s Animal Handling.

Probably so that there’s some granularity? So that character’s have a few more ways to be different from one another?

I personally would rather have fewer skills but with options for specialization. Stealth expertise in Natural environments vs expertise in Urban environments for example.

I do agree that because Survival is so tied to nature, it makes sense to merge it with Nature.

Animal Handling though… to lump stuff like domestication of wild animals for farming, circus training, farm management, training horses and dogs for war, hawking or riding into the same broad category as knowledge of the natural world or how to scrounge for berries is pretty debatable.

I’d merge nature and survival but keep Animal handling separate, personally.

Edit: sometimes more than one skill could be applicable. Knowing to play dead in front of a bear vs animal handling to do the same would be equal in my games.

 

[Minigiant]

Nope same dc. 15. Becausr it is medium hard.
Exactly. So no need to decide for a challenge rarting for an unliving thing.

Exactly. The DC is based on the action not the PC.

DCs don't go up as your PCs level. Actions do. Just like spells.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Exactly. The DC is based on the action not the PC.

DCs don't go up as your PCs level. Actions do. Just like spells.

Still makes no sense as I and others elaborated.

One scale is enough. Easy, medium, hard. Adding another dimension is absolutely unneccessary.

Spell DCs also don't scale in 5e btw. In 3e a higher level spell was harder to resist than a lower level one. And they did more damage per caster level. So 3e introduced the infamous quadratic wizard. 4e topped it by letting everyone scale quadratic on the offense and the defense side. Attack bonus and damage. Defense and hitpoints.
And skill DCs also scaled on top.

The result was a very ugly experience if you deviated even a bit from the challenge level = PC level.

5e corrected much of that with bounded accuracy.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Spell DCs also don't scale in 5e btw. In 3e a higher level spell was harder to resist than a lower level one. And they did more damage per caster level. So 3e introduced the infamous quadratic wizard. 4e topped it by letting everyone scale quadratic on the offense and the defense side.

 

[Minigiant]

Still makes no sense as I and others elaborated.

One scale is enough. Easy, medium, hard. Adding another dimension is absolutely unneccessary

It is one scale.

A DC 15 action is normal at level 1 and easy at level 7th.

Easy, Medium or Hard for whom?

 

[Maxperson]

As an example, up thread a false magic circle was proposed to threaten some creature. Assuming the circle believed, some posters seemed to feel that would clinch i

A threat is intimidation. A lie is deception. What we have above is something that is both. It would be punitive to have the player roll twice for the check, so I would just allow the player to pick which one he is using since both apply.

I don't think deception should trump intimidation or vice versa.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is one scale.

Two scales.

Level and difficulty....

A DC 15 action is normal at level 1 and easy at level 7th.

That table was not used in this direction in the examples of the books.

Easy, Medium or Hard for whom?

 

[Maxperson]

If you choose a level 8 chandelier swing.

The level 8 was the PC level, not the encounter level. I asked you upthread what you were basing your claim that it was encounter level on, because nothing on page 42 supports that claim. You didn't answer. Do you have something solid from the book to show me that says all DCs are based on encounter level?

If a level 8 PC fighter and a level 5 PC fighter decide to both swing from a chandelier the same way to attack a for, do they get different DCs?

If you are using page 42, yes they do have two different DCs. According to everything on that page anyway.

They are doing the same thing.

Right, but they are both supposed to be moderately challenged by it, and that requires two different DCs.

 

[Maxperson]

but is that true?
Forging weapons has no specific skill in D&D 4

Realistically, forging weapons involves working with steel, using tools that require strength and dexterity. Sure, these mere abilities scores might not change over time, but whether you're a Wizard, Rogue or Fighter, you are going to become more agile, stronger and enduring as you travel the world and fighting bandits, pirates and monsters.
And so the stuff you definitely need for Crafting will become better - the Level 20 Wizard isn't some fat slob barely capable of walking in the absolute, he only looks like it compared to his Level 20 Fighter or Rogue friend. He is going to be able to swing that hammer hitting he hot iron better than he was at Level 1, because he was involving in physical challenges for a long time, even if that wasn't why he was with the party.
And likewise, the Fighter never learned to cast actual spells, but he has seen spells cast by his Wizard, he listened to the Cleric preaching about the gods or explaining about the heavens, he has seen the Ranger go hunt, he also as seen the Rogue pick locks. He is going to pick up stuff, even if he's never really learned all the fundamentals and could never compete with the specialist in his party, and so he might be able to identify some spell or pick a lock that might have been almost impossible when he was level 1.

I could watch forging all day every day and not know how to do it. And that's watching it. The 20th PC on other hand will still have +10, despite never having seen anything forged at all. Yet somehow he's going to know which tools to use and when, how much to heat the metal to, and more. That's bupkis.

It's okay to be bad at stuff you haven't trained in or used. Even at high level.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It may help here to consider the RAW that creatures are

Willing. If your urging aligns with the monster’s desires, no ability check is necessary; the monster fulfills your request in a way it prefers.​

​

Unwilling. If your urging is repugnant to the monster or counter to its alignment, no ability check is necessary; it doesn’t comply.​

​

Hesitant. If you urge the monster to do something that it is hesitant to do, you must make an ability check, which is affected by the monster’s attitude: Indifferent, Friendly, or Hostile​

​

In many situations -- such as one of credible and overwhelming threat -- creatures may be simply willing to avoid that threat. Additionally,

The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure. When the outcome is uncertain and narratively interesting, the dice determine the result.​

​

In cases where it could go either way and the consequences are interesting, call for a check. Many of the putative counter-cases put in this thread seem cast as extremes: if that characterisation is accurate then RAW would suggest not calling for an ability check.

As an example, up thread a false magic circle was proposed to threaten some creature. Assuming the circle believed, some posters seemed to feel that would clinch it. If right then no Intimidation check seems justified. The check with clear consequences riding on it seems to me to be the Deception.

One shift in perspective given "consequences resolution" is that players don't roll just in order to narrate their character's performance. If it's possible they succeed; if it's impossible GM should say why. They roll to see what interesting directions the consequences will take play. Up thread there was much wrangling over intimidating a dracolich. I saw interesting consequences laid out... but then they were preempted. GM got in mind some great twists... if only they'd made those twists depend upon the roll!

While the Platonic ideal of the game says that the check only happens if the DM finds the resolution to be in question, the reality of the situation is a little messier. You, as the player, cannot know when you pick which skills to be proficient in when the DM will rule in a specific circumstance. So, when considering the skill, you need to consider actively choosing to use the skill, to judge if it is worth taking.

And when you are in the moment, if Intimidation isn't something you have picked to be a skill you have... you are less likely to attempt to intimidate someone. Unlike in physical situations, where you may declare "Crap! I tackle the guy!" and get asked to make an athletics check [yes I am aware that this is now an attack, using a classic example] when you are in a social situation, you are less likely to be in a corner and reacting. Intimidation, Persuasion, and Deception are very proactive skills, used when you are trying to alter a situation intentionally, not investigating or dealing with a physical obstacle.

And this all plays into the perception of this skill, because you have to consider when you would use it. And unlike all the other social skills, you will not be trying to use it the instances where the social pillar is the most exciting and game changing.