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

[W'rkncacnter]

on the subject of whether a roll is deception or intimidation, i wonder if the problem might be deception, not intimidation.

because ultimately, persuasion and intimidation describe a tactic - you try to convince someone your way is right, or you try to pressure them into not fighting you about it. but deception isn't really a tactic in the same way. rather, it's establishing a false set of circumstances so you can then use a tactic. you lie that there's a magic circle to pressure a creature into staying still. you lie about a rival kingdom being behind an assassination attempt to convince the king it wasn't you. if deception weren't a skill, anything it could cover could otherwise fall under persuasion or intimidation, and so really deception should be something you roll on top...which effectively just makes the roll disadvantage.

i dunno, maybe i'm overthinking this.

 

[clearstream]

As a baseline I will be using the 2024 text for Intimidation

Awe or threaten someone into doing what you want.​

​

I like the move away from stipulating physical violence ("and physical violence.")

See, the bolded is where we are not seeing eye to eye. I'm not saying that the result is a meaningful failure. I'm saying that there can be different meaningful(both good and bad) consequences for success.

If the party is in a dry grassy plains and wants to set the grass on fire to deter the orcs following them, success means that they deter the orcs. That doesn't mean that the fire won't spread across the dry plains and threaten the village that's a mile away.

That said, often there will be no consequence either way for success. Circumstances will determine.

Yes, and my last paragraph laid that out. GM can certainly attach a negative consequence to success -- such as the grass fire will rage out of control. But when ought they to do that? And can players describe actions that on a success hedge out such consequences?

To my reading @Chaosmancer has laid out with great determination a dilemma. Intimidation must come with unpalatable costs (negative consequences, even on a success) and cannot be permitted to be strong enough to make those costs worthwhile (would amount to "overcoming BBEG").

One needn't agree with either horn of that dilemma, or one can blunt the first and accept the second and vice versa. If one is determined to paint oneself into a corner, one ought of course to uphold an extreme version of both horns!

I have outlined how to go about blunting one horn or other. Other methods are possible. I have aimed to illuminate the form of @Chaosmancer's argument, and I don't find the extreme takes needed to sharpen the horns very compelling.

At the table I've observed that we're capable of letting creatures be intimidated without fostering dangerous resentment (and I find uncompelling the folksy social theories that purport to forestall that) -- thus blunting the first horn. And I've observed social skills having strong effects without swinging inevitably to breaking the game -- blunting the second.

As to groups that find themselves caught upon both horns of the dilemma through their commitment to extremes, I would first ask: why make such commitments? But if they are enjoying that style of play, then perhaps at their table it truly will be awkward to get Intimidation to work as written. Providing an example where a mechanic would appear to be at odds with a desired play style.

 

[clearstream]

you lie that there's a magic circle to pressure a creature into staying still. you lie about a rival kingdom being behind an assassination attempt to convince the king it wasn't you...

...which effectively just makes the roll disadvantage.

(Bolding mine.) That's an interesting observation. My first thought is -- why not? When my negotiation rests on a deceit, why shouldn't I suffer effective disadvantage in comparison with a negotiation built upon facts?

Deception as a skill then nuances that disadvantage because I can be better or worse at it. As an expert fibber, my "disadvantage" roll can carry a different modifier from that of a character with less guile.

An admonishment to avoid multiplying rolls unnecessarily is often right... but not always right!

 

[Minigiant]

I kind of wish that every skill had either its own base combat action or a feat that creates a new combat based action based on the feat.

Like Intimidation would let you frightened everyone around you.

Arcane, Nature, and Religion would give you a 2nd level wizard, druid, or cleric spell if you roll and beat a DC.

Animal Handling calls from another plane a magical celestial, fey, fiend, or shadow beast.

Etc.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, and my last paragraph laid that out. GM can certainly attach a negative consequence to success -- such as the grass fire will rage out of control. But when ought they to do that? And can players describe actions that on a success hedge out such consequences?

Depending on what the action is, the player(s) could certainly that on a success would hedge out or make such consequences uncertain.

Let's say that those PCs were not being chased by orcs, but knew orcs were coming in a few days. If they told me that they were going to make a large firebreak in the terrain around the town during that time and then later set the fire, that action declaration would/could prevent the town from being at risk from that fire.

To my reading @Chaosmancer has laid out with great determination a dilemma. Intimidation must come with unpalatable costs (negative consequences, even on a success) and cannot be permitted to be strong enough to make those costs worthwhile (would amount to "overcoming BBEG").

I can't see his posts as he is the one person on this site that I've ever blocked. I don't agree with that assertion, though. Remember, skill rolls only come into play if the outcome is in doubt AND there are consequences for failure. With a BBEG, intimidate would likely not work at all, or if it did, wouldn't be able to do things like force surrender. That of course depends on circumstances, the BBEG and more. Only the DM of that particular game could know for sure.

Intimidate need not come with negative costs on success(or even failure), and if it does, it need not be unpalatable.

At the table I've observed that we're capable of letting creatures be intimidated without fostering dangerous resentment (and I find uncompelling the folksy social theories that purport to forestall that) -- thus blunting the first horn. And I've observed social skills having strong effects without swinging inevitably to breaking the game -- blunting the second.

I said as much in some of my posts. I've seen and run games where intimidation success and failure had no negative costs at all. Once someone in a game I was playing in tried to intimidate a gang and the failure just caused them to laugh at the attempt. No attack. No hatred or dislike. No being out for revenge. Just laughing at the absurdity of one guy trying to intimidate a gang. And I agree that intimidate doesn't break the game if the consequences are good, just a little negative, or non-existent

 

[GMMichael]

on the subject of whether a roll is deception or intimidation, i wonder if the problem might be deception, not intimidation.

because ultimately, persuasion and intimidation describe a tactic - you try to convince someone your way is right, or you try to pressure them into not fighting you about it. but deception isn't really a tactic in the same way. . .

i dunno, maybe i'm overthinking this.

You're not overthinking; you're making sense. This is why Modos 2 doesn't have an Intimidate skill. Persuade is for changing minds about facts, and Deceive is for changing minds about falsehoods.

While on the subject . . . persuade and deceive work only against intelligent creatures. You have to tap into something more primal, like Handle (animal) or Willpower, to change an unintelligent creature's mind.

I kind of wish that every skill had either its own base combat action or a feat that creates a new combat based action based on the feat.

Like Intimidation would let you frightened everyone around you.

But, Intimidate does let you frighten everyone around you. That's "influencing through threats," isn't it? Your DM sets a DC, and you roll.

Arcane, Nature, and Religion would give you a 2nd level wizard, druid, or cleric spell if you roll and beat a DC.

Animal Handling calls from another plane a magical celestial, fey, fiend, or shadow beast.

I can see the wizard and the cleric going back to lean on a tree, and having a good laugh while the fighter and bard try to make their DCs for these.

 

[Blue]

You assume that since they have the same amount of rules and descriptive text they are equally good. This is, obviously, not true. If the text is not the same text then the rules are not the same and as such they can be read and interpreted differently by different GMs.

Please, detail how "this is, obviously, not true". Use examples from the text. Because since I read them and asserted that they were the same in the message you responded to, it should be "obvious" that it is NOT "obviously true" to everyone.

Compare and contrast, show where the rules for all of the other social skills are much better than Intimidate.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Please, detail how "this is, obviously, not true". Use examples from the text. Because since I read them and asserted that they were the same in the message you responded to, it should be "obvious" that it is NOT "obviously true" to everyone.

Compare and contrast, show where the rules for all of the other social skills are much better than Intimidate.

What I'm trying to get at is that the same amount of guidance might not be enough.

For example a lot of people might have have preconceived ideas about how a particular skills should work and this influences their handling of the skill.

Someone above mentioned the thing about intimidate being a skill that causes the targets to hate you. I can imagine this being something that the rules should call out. Should they become hateful? Should they not? What wotc decides really doesn't matter, but it should be explained in the rules.

 

[clearstream]

Someone above mentioned the thing about intimidate being a skill that causes the targets to hate you. I can imagine this being something that the rules should call out. Should they become hateful? Should they not? What wotc decides really doesn't matter, but it should be explained in the rules.

The rules do not say they become hateful, which better endorses that they do not than that they do. I would have thought.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

The rules do not say they become hateful, which better endorses that they do not than that they do. I would have thought.

Of course it doesn't say that, but someone is obviously interpreting it that way.

This seems to indicate that there is some issue with the clarity of the rules because people are obviously reading them wrong or misunderstanding them.

edit: I mean you must admit that you cannot counter that particular DM's ruling by pointing at the rules, because the rules do not actually contradict what he's doing.