D&D 5E Intimidation DCs

[Warmaster Horus]

A general Interaction check would just be a Charisma check in my view. In fact, if instead of calling for a particular skill, you just let the player claim a skill applies to the ability check you do call for, it all works out fine. The player generally knows what he or she was going for when describing what the character is doing, so it does not require the DM to interpret the intent. He or she need only call for the Charisma check and the player takes it from there, adding the appropriate skill. This assumes, of course, the player is acting in good faith with regard to action declaration and applicable skill.

Something like that works. I'm a believer in allowing interesting combos of stat/skill bonuses that add some verve to the narrative. I had a situation a while back where the DM asked me to make a Wisdom/Stealth check because my PC had to remain very still and silent for a prolonged time to avoid detection by a creature with tremor sense. You need to be a bit careful about player abuse of always cherrypicking their best stat-skills and trying to apply them to all circumstances. Or allow them to try but with a higher DC or Disadvantage because it's so outrageous.

 

[iserith]

Something like that works. I'm a believer in allowing interesting combos of stat/skill bonuses that add some verve to the narrative. I had a situation a while back where the DM asked me to make a Wisdom/Stealth check because my PC had to remain very still and silent for a prolonged time to avoid detection by a creature with tremor sense. You need to be a bit careful about player abuse of always cherrypicking their best stat-skills and trying to apply them to all circumstances. Or allow them to try but with a higher DC or Disadvantage because it's so outrageous.

Yeah, I try not to play with people who would do that. But even if they skirt the line a little, it can generate interesting fiction which I guess is rather the point of the game (or one of them). Kind of like your Wisdom/Stealth example. Even if the players have no control over which skill bonus is applied to the ability check, they'll tend to do things they have training in so as to mitigate against failure when they have to roll. So I think in general it works okay.

I remember that D&D 4e's version of Gamma World had an Interaction check that covered all the usual skills and I think that worked well in a game where the players ask to make ability checks.

 

[iserith]

I approach these a little differently: if I think of something interesting that could happen if the PC fails the check, then I think about the difficulty. If nothing interesting comes to mind, then the PC succeeds. I find that adds tension when I call for a check ("what does the DM have in mind?"). Since I am a big believer in any given NPC only having partial information on whatever the PC's are interested in, I don't see much upside to the dwarf failing the check (I also find it more fun for the PC's to have to steal the magguffin out of a dragon's horde then not to have it all, because the dwarf failed a check).

I failed to address the "interesting failure" angle in my post, so I'm glad you brought it up. In D&D 5e, it's referred to as a "meaningful consequence of failure." In short, if you can't think of something interesting that happens when the PC fails, then maybe just forget about the ability check altogether!

I will add that, especially with regard to the example in the original post, if you just have the goblin give up the information without a check that would possibly result in the goblin not telling the secret, then you get to (1) provide the PCs with necessary exposition that leads them to the next leg of the adventure and (2) avoid the classic D&D torture scene which I can frankly do without. That's win-win in my book.

 

[Harzel]

As with others, I set a DC that makes sense for the situation. So what factors go into it?

<snip>

Charisma of the NPC: Since charisma is supposed to represent force of will, an extremely low or high charisma may modify the number I came up with based on the motivation of the NPC.

Not saying this is wrong, but if I wanted to consider force of will in this context, I think I might use WIS instead. I'm having a hard time articulating why, exactly, but I think it's something like I think of CHA as "outgoing" force of will, while WIS represents ability to resist something incoming.

 

[Oofta]

Not saying this is wrong, but if I wanted to consider force of will in this context, I think I might use WIS instead. I'm having a hard time articulating why, exactly, but I think it's something like I think of CHA as "outgoing" force of will, while WIS represents ability to resist something incoming.

I choose charisma for potentially modifying the DC needed to intimidate an NPC because it represents the force of their personality. In many cases, it might be wiser to tell the PCs what they want to know. To me, charisma is tied into sense of being/pride/confidence. The more confident someone is in their own self worth, the less confident person is more likely to crack no matter how wise.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Use passive Insight. The key to resisting Intimidation is to understand the person using it on you. Of course, even if you understand what's going on, you may still choose to go along with them if you feel like it makes sense.

Everything else listed, like who is more injured and who has more friends, can go toward determining advantage or disadvantage. If you have some factors that would contribute to each side, then they cancel out as normal.

 

[Hriston]

I'm finding Intimidation a difficult skill to wrap my head around.

1. How does the DM decide the DC of an intimidation check? What factors should determine whether it is "Very Hard" or just "Medium"? Let's say a dwarf fighter is trying to intimidate a goblin into giving up a secret. It seems like any or all of the following considerations might be a factor:

How wounded is the dwarf?
How wounded is the goblin?
Are either of them armed?
Is the goblin used to being bullied?
Did the dwarf just beat the goblin in a fight?
Does the dwarf have a group of friends present?
Does the goblin have a group of friends present?
Does the goblin know that reinforcements will be there soon?
Has a bigger boss threatened the goblin's life if he reveals the secret?
Did the goblin just watch several friends get killed by the dwarf?
Did the dwarf just give an intimidating speech?
etc, etc

That seems like a hell of lot to try and weigh in the spur of the moment.

Let's say the dwarf is badly wounded and unarmed, but has four strong friends behind him and the goblin is alone but is expecting reinforcements and was threatened with death if he revealed the secret, and the dwarf's player just gave a great speech. What should the DC be?

There are two main factors to consider. The first is the attitude of the NPC being intimidated, whether friendly, indifferent, or hostile to the intimidating PC. This measures the lengths to which the NPC is willing to go to help or hinder the PC's goals.

The second is the degree of risk that giving-in to the intimidation poses to the NPC. The greater the risk, the higher the DC. Due to the significant risk to the goblin represented by the received death threat, I would say that the PCs would first need to shift the goblin's attitude to friendly (if it wasn't there already), and then succeed on a DC 20 CHA check.

2. Some monsters have a bonus to Intimidation (eg, Thug has +2). Presumably they can attempt to intimidate PCs? (whether the players have to abide by the result is a separate discussion)

How would the DM set the DC for such a roll? Or is it a contested roll (and if so, contested by what)?

I wouldn't call for a roll in the case of anyone trying to intimidate a PC. I would simply describe what the creature does and says, and then ask the player what their character does.