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

[jmartkdr2]

I would stay it depends on who rolls the higher intimidation roll? shrug

I wouldn't roll for the bugbear in the example unless the bugbear was present. If the gobbos are out scouting or whatever, I'd use a passive score.

Not that it's a big difference.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

For the Lich example to work, you need 1) to have found the phylactery location (and not used that information yourself), 2) Given that information to another NPC 3) That NPC needs to have a desire to see your goals and not just the Lich's death (ie they aren't going to betray you) 4) they need to be able to find the Death Knight 5) There needs to be a Death Knight who wants to kill the Lich and can access the Lich's Phylactery and 6) That Death Knight needs to not kill your NPC informant on sight.

You have set up a multi-stage, elaborate triple blind information drop, to get the chance to use a single skill. And, you are in complete control if you actually know the Lich's real phylactery location.

Yup. You are dealing with a creature that is way out of your league. I think it would take a lot of set up or luck (like stumbling across the information while doing research.)

Edit: Also, the Death Knight was from your scenario. I was using him as a rival to the lich. We can use 'Powerful, Goodly Paladin' instead.

Your informant isn't very good if he can't send a letter...or a sending...or an animal messenger or whatever. I'm sure that if you're about to threaten a Lich, you've probably thought about the logistics.

And this gets deeper, what if you are lying about your leverage? Do I have to succeed on a deception then an intimidation? To know the right things to to say is it Insight, Deception, Intimidation. Why am I three rolls deep before I get to use this?

Well, if your whole setup is to use a social conflict to deal with someothing that is way beyond your power level, then it's probably going to involve more than one roll. Or maybe not. Maybe a single roll would suffice. It's just an example after all and not an actual scenario. I'm fairly certain a single persuasion roll isn't going to defeat a Lich either.

And in the potion seller example... what if they aren't a cheater? What if your leverage is threatening his shop, or his family. Now again, you are teetering into Evil territory. Is your Barbarian really going to threaten to kill the man's wife and child just to get a discount?

I'm pretty sure the Potion Vendor example I used was to demonstrate that you could intimidate someone without the threat of physical violence. The example you're using now ignores that. The threat of being kicked out of your guild or being forced to close your shop doesn't involve any violence but is definitely a powerful bit of leverage. Also, I don't want to get into to discussion of good/evil because that's a pointless side-conversation.

 

[Coroc]

Sleight of hand can not be used to open locks or disarm traps. Those are DEX with thieves' tools.

Yep sorry, but with criminal background you get thieves tools skill also

 

[Coroc]

What Asisreo said.

...

Yes he is right, but you can get thieves tools prof also with criminal background. My mistake, still if yo uget sleight of hand, so you can act as the party rogue, you would chose thieves tools prof also

 

[Chaosmancer]

My point is yes you can intimidate someone without breaking the law or creating a situation where it breaks the game if you fail. Your earlier example on intimidation and your idea of intimidation as a thing is very narrow and that is why you can't see the possibilities.

Regarding the dracolich, you can kill him eaily. You can not automatically intimidate him into helping you and in the example I used "intimidation" worked for a while until said dracolich developed a plan to get it back (a bold plan I might add that suceeded) so in the end the cleric "failed" his intimidation check and the dracolich did not stay in line.

The examples I gave are exactly that - examples. You need to be creative in your game and develop examples based on your situation, but I can say in my games intimidation is used more than almost any other social skill and it is almost NEVER "I will beat you up if you don't do this". Physical domination against the one being intimidated is rarely part of intimidation in the games I play. I also think it is going to be MORE difficult to "persuade" a Vampire or warlord to do something he does not want to do then it will be to "intimidate" him. How are you going to persuade the old king, or warlord or anyone to do something they don't want? I could come up with silly follow on answers to any examples you could use as well, and this is key come up with something that works for the situation your player is in and generate the conditions if it is not readily apparent.

I will also note I did not say put the vampire into a magic circle, I said draw one and convince him (deception) that it is a teleport circle and that pushing him into it will teleport and kill him (intimidation).

Intimidate has nothing to do with being strong or weak, it has to do with finding a leverage point against the NPC you are trying to intimidate. Said NPC could be much, much stronger than you and it can still be successful.

As far as employees - many, many bosses tell employees they have to work certain hours or holidays or follow rules they don't want to follow with the implict threat that they will lose their job if they don't. If a manager tells a server at Denny's restaurant - "you need to wear a mask or go home" that is intimidation and it is happening literally thousands of times today.

Again, though, that vampire can't be intimidated unless you deceive them first. And If I have the time to draw a circle, and the skill to decieve them... why do I even need the intimidation? I've already convinced them that I am one move away from killing them.

It seems like you see Intimidation as "sealing the deal", like, having the power to kill someone or convincing you to kill you can kill them isn't enough. You also have to succeed an intimidation check. But, in most of the games I've been in, if you already have that much power over a person, you just succeed.

Exactly. In one situation, only persuasion works. In another, only intimidation works. In another, both can work equally. In another, one is easier than the other. It doesn't seem inbalanced, then.

Except the "situation" is that the DM is fiating and deciding that a skill won't work before you go to roll. If the DM doesn't decide that the Guard cannot possibly be persuaded, then persuasion is still an option.

And if both are an option, persuasion is the better choice.

Sure, there's been failed democracies as well. I'm not saying that it's perfect, but it's a pretty stable form of government within the ruler's lifetime, which is what matters to you.

Intimidation is something mean to do. You don't often do mean things if you're good-aligned. However, you can intimidate the bad guys. Not necessarily evil people, but you can scare animals like bears or get people that aren't that bright to step aside.

Beasts and idiots. How dangerous.

Meanwhile the con artist is using deception and Persuasion to convince Lords to donate hundreds of gold to the cause. But I got a bear to run away instead of having a six second combat where I killed it.

I'm not sure exactly how smart you think a large group of people are, but a couple of them are indeed suicidally dumb. Like, dumb enough to challenge someone clearly superior to them dumb. That's not a fantasy trope, that's actual genuine real life. If every single creature you encounter in D&D always takes the most logical answer, the DM is too logical and maybe trying too hard. Because monsters and people are idiots.

Well, this is clearly a different experience. Generally, I don't see commoners acting like suicidal death cultists... unless they are secretly suicidal death cultists.

Generally... they want to live, and not cause issues by not stepping 3 ft to the side to let the incredibly obviously dangerous person walk past.

Yup. You are dealing with a creature that is way out of your league. I think it would take a lot of set up or luck (like stumbling across the information while doing research.)

Edit: Also, the Death Knight was from your scenario. I was using him as a rival to the lich. We can use 'Powerful, Goodly Paladin' instead.

Your informant isn't very good if he can't send a letter...or a sending...or an animal messenger or whatever. I'm sure that if you're about to threaten a Lich, you've probably thought about the logistics.

That plays into the point though. I don't need all of that set up for deception of Persuasion. But I do for intimidation to even have a chance.

Well, if your whole setup is to use a social conflict to deal with someothing that is way beyond your power level, then it's probably going to involve more than one roll. Or maybe not. Maybe a single roll would suffice. It's just an example after all and not an actual scenario. I'm fairly certain a single persuasion roll isn't going to defeat a Lich either.

But you might persuade the Lich to an alliance, or that sparing your lives is a better investment, or that killing you is too much trouble.

The goal isn't always to "defeat" the encounter.

I'm pretty sure the Potion Vendor example I used was to demonstrate that you could intimidate someone without the threat of physical violence. The example you're using now ignores that. The threat of being kicked out of your guild or being forced to close your shop doesn't involve any violence but is definitely a powerful bit of leverage. Also, I don't want to get into to discussion of good/evil because that's a pointless side-conversation.

Right, it didn't have to involve violence because you had leverage of him being a criminal. But, if he isn't a criminal, then what kind of leverage can you possibly have?

You can't get a member in good standing kicked out for no reason, so what is your plan to intimidate a man who has no criminal past, if not to start threatening other things.

And the good/evil conversation is not pointless. Many games have "no evil characters" as a clause. And, acting like a bad gangster film is going to qualifiy as evil, making Intimidation worth less in those games, because most of it's uses are not things good characters would do.

 

[Asisreo]

Except the "situation" is that the DM is fiating and deciding that a skill won't work before you go to roll. If the DM doesn't decide that the Guard cannot possibly be persuaded, then persuasion is still an option.

And if both are an option, persuasion is the better choice.

The DM fiats whether a skill is possible regardless. That's literally the explicit process of a DM adjudicating ability checks, period. If you're rolling, the DM has probably fiat'd that it was possible.

Beasts and idiots. How dangerous.

Meanwhile the con artist is using deception and Persuasion to convince Lords to donate hundreds of gold to the cause. But I got a bear to run away instead of having a six second combat where I killed it.

Beasts and Idiots are the most dangerous thing mankind has ever faced. Especially idiots. They'll think they're helping while making the situation much worse. You want the idiots to step aside.

But I was talking about good-aligned suggestions but it seems you've flipped it right back to evil-aligned things.

And if you're looking for an argument that says persuasion is useless, you won't find one here. All skills have a spot (maybe not acrobatics). It's like if I don't come up with some fantastical thing every time, my point doesn't matter. Whether it's a bear, a troll, a T-rex, or a really dumb fiend, intimidation can manipulate them.

Well, this is clearly a different experience. Generally, I don't see commoners acting like suicidal death cultists... unless they are secretly suicidal death cultists.

Generally... they want to live, and not cause issues by not stepping 3 ft to the side to let the incredibly obviously dangerous person walk past.

Yep, generally. Yet there's always some that you'd swear had a death wish. But commoners have, indeed, acted like suicidal death cultists without being suicidal death cultists because they think they're tougher than they are or think they have nothing to lose.

Hell, you're almost definitely playing a suicidal commoner or even a really dumb suicidal noble. The smart commoners would see you as such since adventuring is literally risking your life for seemingly no real good reason when you could've just taken up carpentry. The only reason your character doesn't seem like a suicidal commoner is because the DM never had a CR 13 undead monster behind a corridor at level 1 for snooping in places like undead crypts, and the DM instead put rats and skeletons in there to give you your game progression. There's no real reason why very high level undead can't just exist in an undead location at level 1 yet always at level 11+. The DM just balanced the encojnter for you, congrats, you were still really dumb for going through with it.

 

[auburn2]

Again, though, that vampire can't be intimidated unless you deceive them first. And If I have the time to draw a circle, and the skill to decieve them... why do I even need the intimidation? I've already convinced them that I am one move away from killing them.

It seems like you see Intimidation as "sealing the deal", like, having the power to kill someone or convincing you to kill you can kill them isn't enough. You also have to succeed an intimidation check. But, in most of the games I've been in, if you already have that much power over a person, you just succeed.

Except the "situation" is that the DM is fiating and deciding that a skill won't work before you go to roll. If the DM doesn't decide that the Guard cannot possibly be persuaded, then persuasion is still an option.

And if both are an option, persuasion is the better choice.

Beasts and idiots. How dangerous.

Meanwhile the con artist is using deception and Persuasion to convince Lords to donate hundreds of gold to the cause. But I got a bear to run away instead of having a six second combat where I killed it.

Well, this is clearly a different experience. Generally, I don't see commoners acting like suicidal death cultists... unless they are secretly suicidal death cultists.

Generally... they want to live, and not cause issues by not stepping 3 ft to the side to let the incredibly obviously dangerous person walk past.

That plays into the point though. I don't need all of that set up for deception of Persuasion. But I do for intimidation to even have a chance.

But you might persuade the Lich to an alliance, or that sparing your lives is a better investment, or that killing you is too much trouble.

The goal isn't always to "defeat" the encounter.


Right, it didn't have to involve violence because you had leverage of him being a criminal. But, if he isn't a criminal, then what kind of leverage can you possibly have?

You can't get a member in good standing kicked out for no reason, so what is your plan to intimidate a man who has no criminal past, if not to start threatening other things.

And the good/evil conversation is not pointless. Many games have "no evil characters" as a clause. And, acting like a bad gangster film is going to qualifiy as evil, making Intimidation worth less in those games, because most of it's uses are not things good characters would do.

I think the Vampire or the lich can be intimidated easier than he can be persuaded in most cases and it has nothing at all to do with being able to kill someone. This is my biggest problem with these arguements against it, it is narrowly focused on using violence or the threat of violence.

Absolutely the DM can fiat and decide a skill won't work before you roll and walking up and trying to bribe the lich (persuasion), when he doesn't care about gold and could wipe out your party and just take it if he did care is likely going to be an automatic failure. It will likewise be an automatic failure if you just walk up and threaten to kill the lich too (unless for some reason you are obviously much more powerful than he is or he can't escape which admittedly was in the example I used).

Not every NPC can be intimidated and it certainly does require the right conditions, to include setting those conditions if necessary, but the same is true for persuasion and it is even more so true for deception. In the games I DM and in the games I play intimidation is more likely to work than persuasion in general. To counter your claim - if both are an option either could be the better choice depending on the exact circumstances (and your skill bonus), but persuasion is less likely to be an option at all during important social interactions.

I disagree completely with your ending, deception and persuasion are viable options but in general you have to spend equal time setting up persuasion and more time setting up deception of you want to be convincing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The DM fiats whether a skill is possible regardless. That's literally the explicit process of a DM adjudicating ability checks, period. If you're rolling, the DM has probably fiat'd that it was possible.

Ok... so then why not assume both skills are possible instead of trying to declare that Intimidate might be the only option? Doesn't it make more sense to assume the DM will allow either skill check?

Beasts and Idiots are the most dangerous thing mankind has ever faced. Especially idiots. They'll think they're helping while making the situation much worse. You want the idiots to step aside.

But I was talking about good-aligned suggestions but it seems you've flipped it right back to evil-aligned things.

And if you're looking for an argument that says persuasion is useless, you won't find one here. All skills have a spot (maybe not acrobatics). It's like if I don't come up with some fantastical thing every time, my point doesn't matter. Whether it's a bear, a troll, a T-rex, or a really dumb fiend, intimidation can manipulate them.

And so can persuasion or animal handling (which is really what intimidating an animal should be anyways), and with persuasion they might not hate you afterwards... which seems like the better result

Yep, generally. Yet there's always some that you'd swear had a death wish. But commoners have, indeed, acted like suicidal death cultists without being suicidal death cultists because they think they're tougher than they are or think they have nothing to lose.

Hell, you're almost definitely playing a suicidal commoner or even a really dumb suicidal noble. The smart commoners would see you as such since adventuring is literally risking your life for seemingly no real good reason when you could've just taken up carpentry. The only reason your character doesn't seem like a suicidal commoner is because the DM never had a CR 13 undead monster behind a corridor at level 1 for snooping in places like undead crypts, and the DM instead put rats and skeletons in there to give you your game progression. There's no real reason why very high level undead can't just exist in an undead location at level 1 yet always at level 11+. The DM just balanced the encojnter for you, congrats, you were still really dumb for going through with it.

This is getting to the point of absurdity.

But fine. Some people are so stupid they will attack my 15th level fighter with a tankard because they are too drunk.

My fighter then punches them unconscious after taking no damage, or maybe 1 damage.

No intimidation roll necessary to resolve that situation. Because drunk idiots aren't exactly a "challenge" for a high level fighter to deal with.

Point proven?

I think the Vampire or the lich can be intimidated easier than he can be persuaded in most cases and it has nothing at all to do with being able to kill someone. This is my biggest problem with these arguements against it, it is narrowly focused on using violence or the threat of violence.

Absolutely the DM can fiat and decide a skill won't work before you roll and walking up and trying to bribe the lich (persuasion), when he doesn't care about gold and could wipe out your party and just take it if he did care is likely going to be an automatic failure. It will likewise be an automatic failure if you just walk up and threaten to kill the lich too (unless for some reason you are obviously much more powerful than he is or he can't escape which admittedly was in the example I used).

Not every NPC can be intimidated and it certainly does require the right conditions, to include setting those conditions if necessary, but the same is true for persuasion and it is even more so true for deception. In the games I DM and in the games I play intimidation is more likely to work than persuasion in general. To counter your claim - if both are an option either could be the better choice depending on the exact circumstances (and your skill bonus), but persuasion is less likely to be an option at all during important social interactions.

I disagree completely with your ending, deception and persuasion are viable options but in general you have to spend equal time setting up persuasion and more time setting up deception of you want to be convincing.

Okay, other than hold a phylactery in your hand or threatening a drunk commoner, how? How does this work more often than not.

You guys keep saying that it doesn't have to be threats of violence, but the only time you provided an example of that was to threaten to reveal the crimes of a potion vendor. Which, doesn't work if they aren't a criminal.

So, how do you use Intimidation more than persuasion without threats of violence, implied threats of violence, relying on the authority of someone more powerful than you (I'll go tell the king on you) or the person having secret criminal activities you can uncover.

 

[Ancalagon]

In our PF game, we were operating as diplomat, in a fortress full of orcs who were until very recently pirates. The party had been separated - our fighter and gunslinger were not present. Some of the orcs were "hey why don't we just take their stuff?" My character (A magus) is extremely good at intimidate. A nice intimidate check and they changed their mind - diplomatic mission rescued.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

That plays into the point though. I don't need all of that set up for deception of Persuasion. But I do for intimidation to even have a chance.

But you might persuade the Lich to an alliance, or that sparing your lives is a better investment, or that killing you is too much trouble.

The goal isn't always to "defeat" the encounter.

Sorry, if you are 4th level and are trying to use persuasion to get an alliance with a lich, you're probably going to need more than one persuasion roll. Especially without any prep ahead of time. At least in my games. Liches have lots of powerful allies and don't need to rely on scrubs. I feel that is putting too much weight on persuasion.

Right, it didn't have to involve violence because you had leverage of him being a criminal. But, if he isn't a criminal, then what kind of leverage can you possibly have?

none? like, that's not the point I was trying to make? I was saying you need leverage to use intimidate. Just the same as you need a logical argument to use persuasion.

You aren't going to persuade the bandit king to make you the new bandit king without some kind of reasoning or background prep. Once again, if you allow bandit ambushes to be resolved in a single persuasion check, you're making it too powerful.

You can't get a member in good standing kicked out for no reason, so what is your plan to intimidate a man who has no criminal past, if not to start threatening other things.

Use persuasion to get a deal instead of intimidate. Intimidate isn't perfect for every situation the same way as persuasion isn't the best for every situation. The crooked Vendor isn't going to budge on his prices, regardless of your persuasion roll. Unless the Dm makes persuasion the catch-all solution for every social conflict.

And the good/evil conversation is not pointless. Many games have "no evil characters" as a clause. And, acting like a bad gangster film is going to qualify as evil, making Intimidation worth less in those games, because most of it's uses are not things good characters would do.

I mean, if your definition of Intimidate is just beating people up, then, I guess so.

But Who cares about good or evil? There are in-game consequences. Some people will think you are evil and some will think you are good. I have friends who are bouncers - they use intimidate all the time to break up fights without actually getting into fights. I don't think they're evil.

In any case, Your characters do things and NPCs act according to their personal morality. I'm just the referee. It's not my job to pass moral judgement. My job is to do the best to play the NPCs the way they would act according to their personalities. The consequences of actions will be natural.

I can see a 'good' character using intimidate as a solution instead of killing. It may be a flawed solution to a conflict but the PC may feel justified. Only his peers and by-standards will judge him. He will have to live with the consequences and try to parse them. I feel It's totally irrelevant to the conversation.