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

[Minigiant]

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

You kinda have to hardcore it as a explicit rule to get most DMs to allow it with any real chance of success.

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

More reason to include it.

 

[clearstream]

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.

I'm reminded of COWTRA. Folk are always capable of reading rules to include things they do not say: the trick is to concentrate on what they do say.

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.

So far as I know the Advanced Squad Leader rule set was where this phenomenon was first noted. The designers eventually realised that no matter how exhaustive they attempted to be, someone could always unearth possibilities the rules failed to expressly exclude.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.")


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.

If you find my arguments uncompelling, it would be nice to have that directed to me, instead of my needing to guess as to the context you are discussing under.

Do you find it uncompelling to claim that Intimidation is the tactic of bullies? Do you find it uncompelling that DMs might seek a narrative consequence to a character consistently acting like a bully? Do you find it uncompelling because it is easy enough to imagine a scene with an NPC who will never matter to the plot again, and thus there would be no long-term consequences to the story? I don't particularly find my position to be extreme, because I am not considering the skill in the context of "We beat the information out of the bandit who will never even get a name because he is so insignificant to the plot". Yes, you CAN use it the skill in those circumstances, but you can use any of the social skills in that circumstance to potentially similar effect. Depending on the information you can even employ exploration skills like investigation or history checks to determine the information. But when you get to a high-stakes social situation with a long-running NPC... will Intimidation truly have no long-lasting ramifications to the plot? Could you really threaten violence on a supposed ally of the PCs again and again and again and NEVER suffer consequences for it? Seems unlikely.

And yes, I will state that you cannot allow a single social check, and especially not a single Intimidation check, defeat a BBEG. This is not because it would break the game, which I don't think I have ever claimed. It would be because it would be dissatisfying.

There is only a single scene I can think of where the heroes opened with an intimidation and the villain was largely defeated by that intimidation. And that is the Princess Bride. And that scene with Humperdink, while amazing, was based entirely on him being a COWARD at heart. And it is played for laughs. Imagine defeating Vecna because he was a coward and making it a comedy moment. Or Lolth. Or Demogorgon. These are not the types of stories DnD players want, by and large. They don't want the threat they've spent months gathering power and prestige to face in an epic showdown... to cave at the threat of violence against them and surrender. It would drain the energy from the game and lead to a "wait.... that's it? That's how we win?" moment that would be unsatisfying for many players.

And I would say you can't defeat that sort of enemy with persuasion or deception either, but you have OTHER options for those skills. You can use them to delay the fight, to slip in unnoticed as part of a clever scheme. They are far more useable as tools than Intimidation in that sort of confrontation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And I would say you can't defeat that sort of enemy with persuasion or deception either, but you have OTHER options for those skills. You can use them to delay the fight, to slip in unnoticed as part of a clever scheme. They are far more useable as tools than Intimidation in that sort of confrontation.

Whilst intimidation might not get the big bad to give up, it might make them hesitate, or more plausibly, make the minions to hesitate. And you really cannot persuade people that are already violent and planning to kill you. But you might be able to intimidate them.

 

[GMMichael]

Whilst intimidation might not get the big bad to give up, it might make them hesitate, or more plausibly, make the minions to hesitate. And you really cannot persuade people that are already violent and planning to kill you. But you might be able to intimidate them.

Ah, the gray approach. If only D&D had an outcome between Succeed and Fail.

Murderous people can be persuaded. Offer to buy them a round of drinks. Show them the grenade you stole from the national guard. Or my personal favorite, pull out your wallet picture of them as babies, being held by their proud mom in a hospital bed, with you next to them - the proud father!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ah, the gray approach. If only D&D had an outcome between Succeed and Fail.

I think there was suggestion for using a degree of success in the DMG, and even if there wasn't I often use it. It is quite easy.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ah, the gray approach. If only D&D had an outcome between Succeed and Fail.

It has. Just look up degrees of success in the DMG.

Murderous people can be persuaded. Offer to buy them a round of drinks. Show them the grenade you stole from the national guard. Or my personal favorite, pull out your wallet picture of them as babies, being held by their proud mom in a hospital bed, with you next to them - the proud father!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Whilst intimidation might not get the big bad to give up, it might make them hesitate, or more plausibly, make the minions to hesitate.

Okay, but what do we mean by hesitate? Are we going to allow an intimidation check cause all of the enemies to lose their entire turn? That's a powerful ability, and I know a lot of DMs who would immediately be calling that far too powerful, because it is too easy for a level 10 bard to get a +13+1d8+5+1d4 with advantage on that sort of roll. A rogue at that level could, in theory, guarantee a result of 22.

And then every fight, the DM is just waiting for them to stun the enemy side with an intimidation, giving the party a free turn.

Or do we mean something else? Do we mean give every enemy disadvantage on all their attacks?

I'm not saying such a thing is impossible to write a well-balanced rule for, but this is currently far beyond the scope of what a skill typically does. And would immediately make Intimidate a must-have skill for anyone who optimizes.

And you really cannot persuade people that are already violent and planning to kill you. But you might be able to intimidate them.

You might be able to, but again, there is the consideration of power and HOW you intimidate them.

For example, look at a classic Marvel Comic scene. Reed Richards intimidating Galactus with the Cosmic Nullifier, that the team went on a whole adventure to retrieve. In that situation... there is no intimidation roll. If you specifically went on an adventure to get the one item the BBEG fears to intimidate them with it... you've won.

But, in more modern stories, we've seen people confront Galactus with "I have gathered this McGuffin power source so you should fear me!" and Galactus responds "That makes this an interesting fight instead of a murder" and begins kicking the crap out of them. Because just reaching a high level of power doesn't automatically mean you are threatening to beings that sit at the top of the food chain.

A Barbarian saying "I've killed thirteen men with my bare hands" might intimidate a barkeep, or a bandit, but the lich overlord whose subjugated the countryside under his necromantic rule is as likely to go "I killed one hundred just to make this wand" as they are to be intimidated by the Barbarians' mighty thews. And the more often you show the villain as being SCARED of the party, the less of a threat they feel like. Because they are scared of you, therefore they are acknowledging you are STRONGER than them, therefore it is just a matter of starting the fight to win.

And again, this CAN work, you CAN have scenes or games where you can make this work, but if you were to randomly poll 100 uses of Intimidation, the amount of them that would show the BBEG being intimidated by the party without having to have gone on a McGuffin quest... would be like 3% of them. It happens, but it is incredibly rare.

 

[Clint_L]

Ah, the gray approach. If only D&D had an outcome between Succeed and Fail.

Murderous people can be persuaded. Offer to buy them a round of drinks. Show them the grenade you stole from the national guard. Or my personal favorite, pull out your wallet picture of them as babies, being held by their proud mom in a hospital bed, with you next to them - the proud father!

I will often give the players different degrees of success for different DCs. For example, maybe persuading the witness to keep their mouth shut is an easy DC (10) but scaring them into actively lying to the city watch is hard (DC 20), etc.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Okay, but what do we mean by hesitate? Are we going to allow an intimidation check cause all of the enemies to lose their entire turn? That's a powerful ability, and I know a lot of DMs who would immediately be calling that far too powerful, because it is too easy for a level 10 bard to get a +13+1d8+5+1d4 with advantage on that sort of roll. A rogue at that level could, in theory, guarantee a result of 22.

And then every fight, the DM is just waiting for them to stun the enemy side with an intimidation, giving the party a free turn.

Or do we mean something else? Do we mean give every enemy disadvantage on all their attacks?

I'm not saying such a thing is impossible to write a well-balanced rule for, but this is currently far beyond the scope of what a skill typically does. And would immediately make Intimidate a must-have skill for anyone who optimizes.

So first of all in response to the bolded part, yes you are entirely correct. This is caused by skills being *. If skills were less * there would be interesting options all around and no option would be clearly superior.

You might be able to, but again, there is the consideration of power and HOW you intimidate them.

For example, look at a classic Marvel Comic scene. Reed Richards intimidating Galactus with the Cosmic Nullifier, that the team went on a whole adventure to retrieve. In that situation... there is no intimidation roll. If you specifically went on an adventure to get the one item the BBEG fears to intimidate them with it... you've won.

But, in more modern stories, we've seen people confront Galactus with "I have gathered this McGuffin power source so you should fear me!" and Galactus responds "That makes this an interesting fight instead of a murder" and begins kicking the crap out of them. Because just reaching a high level of power doesn't automatically mean you are threatening to beings that sit at the top of the food chain.

A Barbarian saying "I've killed thirteen men with my bare hands" might intimidate a barkeep, or a bandit, but the lich overlord whose subjugated the countryside under his necromantic rule is as likely to go "I killed one hundred just to make this wand" as they are to be intimidated by the Barbarians' mighty thews. And the more often you show the villain as being SCARED of the party, the less of a threat they feel like. Because they are scared of you, therefore they are acknowledging you are STRONGER than them, therefore it is just a matter of starting the fight to win.

And again, this CAN work, you CAN have scenes or games where you can make this work, but if you were to randomly poll 100 uses of Intimidation, the amount of them that would show the BBEG being intimidated by the party without having to have gone on a McGuffin quest... would be like 3% of them. It happens, but it is incredibly rare.

My propose solution to fixing intimidation is to make it into a class ability, basically something like the fear spell. Give it limited uses to keep it from being overpowered and make important characters immune to it.