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

[Asisreo]

Sure, if he pays him off, but what if he simply appeals to the guard's better nature to help some poor travelers who don't have the coin to spare? That is also persuasion and you aren't breaking any laws to do it.

What if the guard is an A-hole and doesn't give a damn about the average begging peons that happen to wander the streets?

... Would you even have them roll for that? I mean "I am literally holding your soul in my hand and have no problem ending your immortal existence" is less abotu intimidation and more about the fact that you got a Dracoliches Phylactery. I think that is a situation where you can no longer fail, so no roll even happens.

Which kind of misses the point of using the skill.

Could always be bluffing. Yeah, sure, it looks like the phylactery, but if he shows no signs of being threatening, he may not have to guts to do it or the skill to do it quick enough for them to yield. If the dracolich goes first, he may be able to just escape with it.

1) Does a level 15 fighter even need to roll? Again, I don't really find it compelling to tell me the skill is meant for my level 15 dragonslayer to tell a potato farmer to step aside. I'd like to think I can do that with no problem.

Potato farmers are dumb. Sure, they may see your shiny armor and your flaming sword and think "wow, this guy is really strong, maybe I shouldn't mess with him." But they may also see your shiny armor and flaming sword and think "yeah, if I go right for the neck, I think I can take him." Like the idiots people are.

And this gets right back to the issue, if Intimidate is only useful against people far far weaker than me, or whom I have a sokid undeniable advantage over (like literally knife to their throat) then what use is it? Am I really going to have the rogue roll to intimidate the put purse while he is millimeters from stabbing the guy to death? The only thing the guy can do is call the bluff, and then the player either kills him (losing the information) or backs down (losing the information) and if I succeed... well this guy isn't exactly going to sing my praises for threatening to kill him

2) Intimidate your employees? Really? Imagine you have a boss who constantly "coerces" you into working. Do you think you are going to be happy working their? Think you are going to be loyal? I mean, this is straight out of the Dark Lord's Handbook. You don't go around threatening the help, that just incentivizes them to hate your guts.

I think you're missing a key component:

You do not care how people feel about you when you intimidate people. You aren't here to make friends, you're here to get what you want and leave. Whatever strength these peasants could muster up to face you is not enough to persuade you. They aren't going to gain enough power to be a problem. You can take out their whole village if need be. The king or presiding noble isn't going to do anything about it because he doesn't care about the common rabble enough to bat an eye. They probably do, but the stupid commoners don't know that. They probably only know the nobility from the knights that tax them every couple of moons.

If you're good-aligned, you're not often going to use intimidation for the reasons you gave. But you needn't always be good-aligned. There's nothing wrong with scaring a few weaklings to have them know your place.

 

[Undrave]

I wonder if a lot of people run Persuasion way differently in their games, if they think of it as bribes and lies.

I'm wondering too...

And this gets right back to the issue, if Intimidate is only useful against people far far weaker than me, or whom I have a sokid undeniable advantage over (like literally knife to their throat) then what use is it? Am I really going to have the rogue roll to intimidate the put purse while he is millimeters from stabbing the guy to death? The only thing the guy can do is call the bluff, and then the player either kills him (losing the information) or backs down (losing the information) and if I succeed... well this guy isn't exactly going to sing my praises for threatening to kill him

Seriously... Why is it even a skill to begin with if you need to already be stronger? Shouldn't it just be a basic function of your level? Something everybody can just do once they've beaten up enough people? Why do we need a whole proficiency for what is essentially the social equivalent of the Shove attack?

Could always be bluffing. Yeah, sure, it looks like the phylactery, but if he shows no signs of being threatening, he may not have to guts to do it or the skill to do it quick enough for them to yield. If the dracolich goes first, he may be able to just escape with it.

Can the Dracolich take the risk you're bluffing?

If you're good-aligned, you're not often going to use intimidation for the reasons you gave. But you needn't always be good-aligned. There's nothing wrong with scaring a few weaklings to have them know your place.

And that's another thing! Most of the uses I see here, aside from those combat related, sound just like being an absolute dickhead bully to everybody. That's not good-aligned... heck I wouldn't even feel good doing it unless I was bullying some bad guys to begin with, which I could probably take in a fight anyway...

Is there any other skill that loses use by you playing to your alignment?!

 

[Wishbone]

2) Intimidate your employees? Really? Imagine you have a boss who constantly "coerces" you into working. Do you think you are going to be happy working their? Think you are going to be loyal? I mean, this is straight out of the Dark Lord's Handbook. You don't go around threatening the help, that just incentivizes them to hate your guts.

Drill sergeants regularly seem to do okay and soldiers seem to be pretty loyal while respecting them. R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket seems to be an example of doing this the wrong way like you said.

Every time a boss calls you into a meeting for a performance review without presenting the facts upfront and then laying out a way that you might have screwed up and the costs of future failure while setting expectations for future performance, that sounds like Intimidate to me. Even just a boss peering over your shoulder as you work or asking to be walked through the steps of a job could be a form of Intimidation by their presence and the comfort level of the person they're around.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like your approach, but I would add that there is a podcast where Jeremy Crawford states that there are passive scores for all abilities/skills (not just perception/investigation) and these represent the floor for your success on a skill check. The die rolls is to see if you succeed beyond this floor. It avoids the nonsense of a highly skilled character failing at something relatively easy.

I would ask Crawford, if that's the case, why do they have a Reliable Talent class ability for the Rogue? If passive scores are the floor, then everyone already has Reliable Talent.

BTW, I might remember wrong, but I think the PHB, DMG and MM only really mention Passive Perception and (once or twice at most) Passive Investigation. So if someone buys the core game and doesn't follow online discussions, they may not be aware of other passive scores.

1. Is it necessary having 3 separate skills for getting people to do what you want? Probably not. Let's just simply it all to Manipulate (Cha) with optional rules to substitute an ability score when it appears appropriate.

...

3. As to Animal Handling and Sleight of Hand, all depends on your campaign I suppose. Instead of useless, they're really situational and DM dependent. Last session, in my Dark Sun game, a player tried to leap on a kank (domesticated ant mount) and make it go. Had him make a roll (success) and he remembered you need to tap on its antennae to spur it to action. Sleight of Hand comes up for wizards (heavily hated and hunted in the setting) to try and hide their spellcasting and make it look like something else, such as psionics or elemental clerical magic. In our campaign, these skills can matter IF the DM provides a diverse set of opportunities for them to be utilized. Doesn't always mean players will. I can put out a kank for my players to ride, but I cannot lead them to water...or something like that.

Uff... Every couple of weeks someone wants to merge skill proficiencies. The reason why they had 18 skills proficiencies in 5e is because 2 years of playtesting suggested that such amount was the most preferred level of granularity to vary their characters. I personally would have wanted twice as many skills, more similar to the 3e list. Less than 20 is already very few, it's an average 3 skill per ability score. Lower it even more, and then you can be sure almost every character will just take the obvious skill. If you are not interested in character variations then just use ability scores.

And also the idea that everything depends on the DM should belong to the past. If you choose Intimidate proficiency (or whatever) for your PC, then you should actively look forward for opportunities to use it, not sitting around until your DM asks you to roll. The Wizard player is not sitting idle until the DM asks her to cast Fireball.

You never threaten the Emperor into supporting your expedition. You convince him through lies or logic. Intimidation will just get the guards dragging you away in chains.

"Your majesty, if you don't support our expedition, we will destroy your empire".
"Your majesty, if you don't support our expedition, the rival kingdom will destroy your empire".

Why can't the second one be also a use of Intimidation?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Seriously... Why is it even a skill to begin with if you need to already be stronger? Shouldn't it just be a basic function of your level?

There is no way for an NPC to tell what level a character is.

And that's another thing! Most of the uses I see here, aside from those combat related, sound just like being an absolute dickhead bully to everybody. That's not good-aligned...

Most of the time I have seen it used is to avoid killing NPCs. If the check fails those NPCs are killed by the party. If the check succeeds the NPCs get to live.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

The DMG has a list of diseases which are nonmagical.

The DMG also has a list of futuretech weapons. It's nice that there is support for these things, but they're not exactly a major part of many games so far as I can tell.

One could totally make a campaign that made meaningful use of the Medicine skill, but I think the focus of the game on magical healing, magical maladies, and regaining health through rest is going to sideline the Medicine skill in almost any campaign where the DM doesn't make a point of making it relevant.

 

[DND_Reborn]

See, if DnD had a morale system that'd be a good use of Intimidate proficiency, but without it, it might as well be a class feature of Barbarians and Fighters or some kind of maneuver akin to Shove, not one of your few skill proficiency.

FWIW D&D 5E does have a morale system (DMG, p. 272):

Otherwise, uses of Intimidation to get a force to give up etc. would be a contested roll IMO: Charisma (Intimidation) vs. Wisdom (Insight). If the Charisma (Intimidation) wins, I would have the losing side make the same DC 10 Wisdom save (under morale) or flee/surrender.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

To use Intimidate, you need two things:

1. Knowledge of what someone fears
2. Leverage

Most people use it as "I can physically harm you, tell me what you want." That's a very narrow use of Intimidation.

A bouncer can Intimidate you to not start trouble in the bar for a few reasons. Most people aren't prone to violence and the threat of violence will cow them but another reason why a bouncer is intimidating is:
1. You're in the bar for a reason and you don't want to get kicked out. That's what you fear (maybe you're looking for info from patrons.)
2. Bouncer isn't only big and scary, the owner had given him permission to use violence. That's his leverage. So, he can leverage his 'toughness' to get you to behave without a fight because a person knows that, even if you win the fight, the bouncer will be backed by the guard and you'll still get kicked out of the bar.

@Chaosmancer mentioned the lich. A lich can be Intimidated by an 8th level character.
1. A lich fears that his phylactery will get destroyed.
2. Leverage that: "I know where your Phylactery is and I've given the info to someone. If you don't let the prisoners go, and you kill me, that person is going to tell the Death Knight where it is.

Intimidation with no threat of violence at all (blackmail): A crooked Merchant selling watered-down potions
1. fears getting caught by his guild.
2. Give me a discount on good potions or I'm going to tell the guild you're selling fake, watered-down potions.

In any case, without leverage, Intimidation is useless.


Edit: I see some of my points were already make
Also, regarding leverage. This is also why Insight is such a useful skill. It's also useful when using deception because some lies are easier than others (lower DCs) and knowing your opponent makes things easier.

 

[Dausuul]

... Would you even have them roll for that? I mean "I am literally holding your soul in my hand and have no problem ending your immortal existence" is less abotu intimidation and more about the fact that you got a Dracoliches Phylactery. I think that is a situation where you can no longer fail, so no roll even happens.

It's not nearly as simple as all that. The threat of smashing the phylactery is a one-shot deal: If you do it, the dracolich dies, but you get nothing for your trouble.

So the dracolich still has leverage. Obviously it has to give you something--if it simply stonewalls you, you'll smash the phylactery since you get nothing either way. But how much does it give you? What commands does it obey, and what commands does it refuse? If it refuses one command while obeying others, will you kill it for that and lose this valuable servant?

On top of that, what happens when you're not there to oversee it? If you send the dracolich to do a task, does it think it can get away with disobedience once you're out of sight? Or is it too afraid that you will find out and destroy it in punishment?

That's where Intimidate is useful. You want the dracolich to think that you are always on the edge of smashing the phylactery, and any hint of disobedience on its part could push you over. If it thinks you are reasonably reluctant to destroy such a potent asset, it can push back a lot harder.

 

[Asisreo]

Is there any other skill that loses use by you playing to your alignment?!

Sleight of hand, deception, thieves' tools.

If you're evil-aligned, there's uses for persuasion but you'll probably be more busy being an absolute dickhead bully.