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

[clearstream]

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.

Removing a skill and creating a class feature does not seem like "fixing" to me! But then, I don't share the motives for changing it so...

 

[GMMichael]

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.

So, did the PC say, "I want the witness to keep her mouth shut," or "I want the witness to lie about what she saw?"

Removing a skill and creating a class feature does not seem like "fixing" to me! But then, I don't share the motives for changing it so...

Sure it does. All skills should be powers. All powers should be actions that have mechanical benefits. All mechanical benefits should be defined by WotC, and endlessly cleared up by Unearthed Arcana. Then we'll have lots of books-of-actions to buy and keep WotC in business.

 

[clearstream]

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.

I'm addressing the arguments made, rather than the posters. I wouldn't like to imply that I don't find you uncompelling! Only certain arguments that you and others have presented in this thread.

Do you find it uncompelling to claim that Intimidation is the tactic of bullies?

Yes, because one of the words used in the RAW is "awe".

Do you find it uncompelling that DMs might seek a narrative consequence to a character consistently acting like a bully?

Not at all. Such consequences ought to accompany failure.

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?

Reading this, I realised that one of the nice things about social encounters is that NPCs may often survive them to appear again. As for walk-ons... can you clarify what you mean?

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".

Just to check, you don't intend here to attribute to me premises I did not propose, do you?

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.

I think you are implying here that Intimidation is inevitably conflated with violence. I hadn't played it that way in any case, but agree the 2014 text had that implication. Fortunately, the 2024 text has fixed it.

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.

My recollection of this thread of our conversation is that I suggested that were one wedded to a high cost, one could consider permitting a stronger effect; and you leaped from there to intimidating the BBEG. What I find uncompelling regards that particular is that I can see plenty of scope for stronger effect without jumping to that extreme. Avoiding punitive successes for a start.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I don't know if that would fix the skill, as much as make it no longer a skill. It could be a solution for that sort of action, but I think it would stop being a skill at that point.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Removing a skill and creating a class feature does not seem like "fixing" to me! But then, I don't share the motives for changing it so...

It certainly makes the concept of intimidate itself something that is reliable and, well, something that you can act upon within the system, and it would function well even if you kept the original skill. You don't actually need to remove the skills even though you probably should (since they are part of the skill system as a whole, and the skill system is bad).

Imagine if every skill had a fuzzy flavour-texty whatever thing like all the skills in the current edition have, and then you had abilities linked to those skills that could be used reliably by the different classes. This way people who like their fluffy and vaguely defined skills could rely upon them, and people who want to play reliably competent characters could rely on their class features.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, because one of the words used in the RAW is "awe".

Adding the word "awe" to the description doesn't do much for me. In the old definition of the word, Awe means terror or dread, usually inspired by something vastly beyond you. A man is in awe of the ocean. But for awe to not be a result of intentionally trying to make someone feel small (like a bully does) it must be unconscious. The ocean does not attempt to intimidate a man. The ocean does not care about that man, that is part of what instills awe.

The moment I consider someone working to intentionally instill that feeling, I think it loses something. Now, maybe it could be argued to instead be instilling with wonder... but that isn't the skill I would use. For example, imagine a mage attempting to use magic to wow a crowd, to fill them with the wonder of magic and the power of the wizard, but not in a malicious manner... I wouldn't say "roll intimidation" I would have them roll performance. Because filling someone with wonder and beauty is the point of a performance.

Not at all. Such consequences ought to accompany failure.

I don't think failure is a necessary component. If a healer goes from town to town, curing diseases, then having people swarm them when they enter a new town which has heard of them is not a result of them failing any roll. It is a result of their actions and people knowing their actions.

If you've killed six people at the local bar when drunk, and then you walk into the bar... people are going to avoid you. You don't need to have failed any rolls, your actions have given you a reputation.

And so it is I see with using Intimidation. Once or twice? Sure, maybe not going to get around. But if you are constantly using intimidation in all your social interactions... that gets around to people. That is notable. And it would lead to people treating you in a specific way, just as they treat the healer or the violent drunk.

Reading this, I realised that one of the nice things about social encounters is that NPCs may often survive them to appear again. As for walk-ons... can you clarify what you mean?

Sure.

Many of the examples that come to mind for intimidation are one-offs. Intimidate a bandit to get the location of their lair... and it is likely that particular bandit never appears again (if the party doesn't kill them). Intimidate a pickpocket into leaving you alone... well, very often a pickpocket doesn't show up again. A shopkeep in a town you only visit once, same thing. This is pretty common when a group is traveling, because you cannot re-use every single NPC. Some of them are going to get dropped behind, and usually they are the ones with brief interactions.

It is actually fairly notable that intimidation is a tactic only really considered for these short-term interactions. Anytime a PC has had an idea that the NPC is going to be a long running character (such as being a shopkeep in a town that has been stated to be a homebase) then the players almost instinctively avoid intimidation as their primary approach. Because being feared by the locals is, in the long term, poor management of their social status.

And I also want to note, that if an NPC is brought back after a single interaction, then HOW the PCs interacted with that NPC is a major part of how they were brought back. If you gave the urchin a silver coin when they tried to pickpocket you, and then you find them later as part of looking for someone, they are going to treat you as a kindly person (or an easy mark), but if you bruised their arm and threatened them with death, they are going to be very unwilling to interact with you, let alone help you. This has nothing to do with failing or succeeding rolls, and just in-character logic. You don't react well to dealing with someone who threatens you showing up again and demanding something of you. You look for a way to escape and get them to leave you alone.

Just to check, you don't intend here to attribute to me premises I did not propose, do you?

No

I think you are implying here that Intimidation is inevitably conflated with violence. I hadn't played it that way in any case, but agree the 2014 text had that implication. Fortunately, the 2024 text has fixed it.

I disagree the 2024 text has fixed it, because actively trying to instill awe either doesn't match with "intimidating the target" or is still the same thing. Instilling fear.

Is it inevitably violence? Maybe not? But at its root, fear is always connected to violence of some sort. You do not fear a man who you do not believe can harm you or what you have built. And even when you bring awe into it... it is still there. We are not in Awe of the ocean because it is safe. It is vast, powerful, and it can kill you without ever knowing you were there, without caring that you were there. Thus, we are in awe of it, filled with exquisite terror. And the moment the ocean TRIES to intimidate you, tries to fill you with awe... it loses some of that awe it had. Because now it actually CARES about you, the insignificant human, to some degree.

My recollection of this thread of our conversation is that I suggested that were one wedded to a high cost, one could consider permitting a stronger effect; and you leaped from there to intimidating the BBEG. What I find uncompelling regards that particular is that I can see plenty of scope for stronger effect without jumping to that extreme. Avoiding punitive successes for a start.

To avoid punitive successes as you have taken to calling them, you need to have people not react like people. Intimidation is fear, and people react differently to fear. Some people will become pleasers, who want nothing more than to offer their back for you to step on, so you don't snap their neck. Other people become belligerent, putting on a tough facade to avoid being seen as weak or cowardly.

Just like, if you successfully decieve someone, it does not mean that they will never learn the truth, it does not make internally coherent sense that instilling someone with fear can never lead to a situation where they react negatively towards you. And consider, the failure of the skill check likely means you did not accomplish your goal, we can play with that a bit, setting up degrees of success, but there is a point where you fail to instill fear, and there does not logically seem to be a point where you succeed so much in instilling fear that you instill no fear, but only respect and admiration.

 

[SteveC]

It's hard to say if Intimidate is the worst skill, but it is up there because it's so narrow in it's application. Most DMs don't want to use the skill for pretty much everything that happens in dialog in shows like Game of Thrones. There's so much use of the skill there!

But for me, the thing is that I don't know which skill in 5.5 is the worst because there's barely any rules for skills at all. You have a chart with one sentence descriptions of the skills, and about half a page of skill "rules." Yes, you do have an addendum of social skills, but if I didn't know the rules for skills already, I'd have no clue just from reading the PHB.

I know that the goal of the 5.5 design was to make the game more accessible to new players but I don't expect they are really going to understand how skills even work just by reading the PHB.

For me: there should be one social skill and you should be able to use multiple abilities based on how you describe your method.

 

[clearstream]

It certainly makes the concept of intimidate itself something that is reliable and, well, something that you can act upon within the system, and it would function well even if you kept the original skill. You don't actually need to remove the skills even though you probably should (since they are part of the skill system as a whole, and the skill system is bad).

Imagine if every skill had a fuzzy flavour-texty whatever thing like all the skills in the current edition have, and then you had abilities linked to those skills that could be used reliably by the different classes. This way people who like their fluffy and vaguely defined skills could rely upon them, and people who want to play reliably competent characters could rely on their class features.

Just to clarify, I like your suggestion of feats connected with skills giving each a rigorously defined effect. That seems both designable and desirable for players. I can see them working well as "half-feats" i.e. a stat bump and an effect.

Characterising that as "fixing" is where we diverge.

 

[clearstream]

Adding the word "awe" to the description doesn't do much for me. In the old definition of the word, Awe means terror or dread, usually inspired by something vastly beyond you. A man is in awe of the ocean. But for awe to not be a result of intentionally trying to make someone feel small (like a bully does) it must be unconscious. The ocean does not attempt to intimidate a man. The ocean does not care about that man, that is part of what instills awe.

The moment I consider someone working to intentionally instill that feeling, I think it loses something. Now, maybe it could be argued to instead be instilling with wonder... but that isn't the skill I would use. For example, imagine a mage attempting to use magic to wow a crowd, to fill them with the wonder of magic and the power of the wizard, but not in a malicious manner... I wouldn't say "roll intimidation" I would have them roll performance. Because filling someone with wonder and beauty is the point of a performance.



I don't think failure is a necessary component. If a healer goes from town to town, curing diseases, then having people swarm them when they enter a new town which has heard of them is not a result of them failing any roll. It is a result of their actions and people knowing their actions.

If you've killed six people at the local bar when drunk, and then you walk into the bar... people are going to avoid you. You don't need to have failed any rolls, your actions have given you a reputation.

And so it is I see with using Intimidation. Once or twice? Sure, maybe not going to get around. But if you are constantly using intimidation in all your social interactions... that gets around to people. That is notable. And it would lead to people treating you in a specific way, just as they treat the healer or the violent drunk.



Sure.

Many of the examples that come to mind for intimidation are one-offs. Intimidate a bandit to get the location of their lair... and it is likely that particular bandit never appears again (if the party doesn't kill them). Intimidate a pickpocket into leaving you alone... well, very often a pickpocket doesn't show up again. A shopkeep in a town you only visit once, same thing. This is pretty common when a group is traveling, because you cannot re-use every single NPC. Some of them are going to get dropped behind, and usually they are the ones with brief interactions.

It is actually fairly notable that intimidation is a tactic only really considered for these short-term interactions. Anytime a PC has had an idea that the NPC is going to be a long running character (such as being a shopkeep in a town that has been stated to be a homebase) then the players almost instinctively avoid intimidation as their primary approach. Because being feared by the locals is, in the long term, poor management of their social status.

And I also want to note, that if an NPC is brought back after a single interaction, then HOW the PCs interacted with that NPC is a major part of how they were brought back. If you gave the urchin a silver coin when they tried to pickpocket you, and then you find them later as part of looking for someone, they are going to treat you as a kindly person (or an easy mark), but if you bruised their arm and threatened them with death, they are going to be very unwilling to interact with you, let alone help you. This has nothing to do with failing or succeeding rolls, and just in-character logic. You don't react well to dealing with someone who threatens you showing up again and demanding something of you. You look for a way to escape and get them to leave you alone.



No



I disagree the 2024 text has fixed it, because actively trying to instill awe either doesn't match with "intimidating the target" or is still the same thing. Instilling fear.

Is it inevitably violence? Maybe not? But at its root, fear is always connected to violence of some sort. You do not fear a man who you do not believe can harm you or what you have built. And even when you bring awe into it... it is still there. We are not in Awe of the ocean because it is safe. It is vast, powerful, and it can kill you without ever knowing you were there, without caring that you were there. Thus, we are in awe of it, filled with exquisite terror. And the moment the ocean TRIES to intimidate you, tries to fill you with awe... it loses some of that awe it had. Because now it actually CARES about you, the insignificant human, to some degree.



To avoid punitive successes as you have taken to calling them, you need to have people not react like people. Intimidation is fear, and people react differently to fear. Some people will become pleasers, who want nothing more than to offer their back for you to step on, so you don't snap their neck. Other people become belligerent, putting on a tough facade to avoid being seen as weak or cowardly.

Just like, if you successfully decieve someone, it does not mean that they will never learn the truth, it does not make internally coherent sense that instilling someone with fear can never lead to a situation where they react negatively towards you. And consider, the failure of the skill check likely means you did not accomplish your goal, we can play with that a bit, setting up degrees of success, but there is a point where you fail to instill fear, and there does not logically seem to be a point where you succeed so much in instilling fear that you instill no fear, but only respect and admiration.

It feels like we're at a good point to agree to disagree. I read threat and awe more broadly than you do. Although maybe we're starting to agree about it not being inevitably welded to violence.

I liked your example of the mage... just follow the rest of the RAW i.e. getting the audience "doing what you want" on account of that awe. I could equally picture a monk going through some practices to peacefully impress on others that they are not to be lightly disregarded.