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

[Crimson Longinus]

If you choose a level 8 chandelier swing.

Please stop misrepresenting this. That is not what the quoted example implies.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd also say that a lot of checks that should be Handle Animal tend to get parsed as Nature, making Handle Animal a similar "it's just not useful" skill

That's why 4es skill set has better.

Animal Handling was in Nature for beasts and Dungeoneering for monstrosity
Survival was was in Nature for nature and Dungeoneering for dungeons, and Streetwise for cities.
Endurance as a Con skill
Streetwise for Gathering info, Carousing, and Urban knowledge
Thievery covered Sleight of Hand and Thieves Tools

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The half-level to skills thing was one of the things I disliked about 4e. Adventures don't become +10 better at forging weapons and armor without having ever tried just because they are 20th level. They probably don't even become +1 better, but some small synergy increase might be warranted.

but is that true?
Forging weapons has no specific skill in D&D 4

Realistically, forging weapons involves working with steel, using tools that require strength and dexterity. Sure, these mere abilities scores might not change over time, but whether you're a Wizard, Rogue or Fighter, you are going to become more agile, stronger and enduring as you travel the world and fighting bandits, pirates and monsters.
And so the stuff you definitely need for Crafting will become better - the Level 20 Wizard isn't some fat slob barely capable of walking in the absolute, he only looks like it compared to his Level 20 Fighter or Rogue friend. He is going to be able to swing that hammer hitting he hot iron better than he was at Level 1, because he was involving in physical challenges for a long time, even if that wasn't why he was with the party.
And likewise, the Fighter never learned to cast actual spells, but he has seen spells cast by his Wizard, he listened to the Cleric preaching about the gods or explaining about the heavens, he has seen the Ranger go hunt, he also as seen the Rogue pick locks. He is going to pick up stuff, even if he's never really learned all the fundamentals and could never compete with the specialist in his party, and so he might be able to identify some spell or pick a lock that might have been almost impossible when he was level 1.

 

[Minigiant]

Please stop misrepresenting this. That is not what the quoted example implies.

The quote doesn't imply it but the entire game system does.

4E is a game system about having leveled actions. PCs and NPCs can use powers that are of their level or below. DM can choose if they want to allow powers of their level.

But at no point and nowhere in any of the books does it say that when you level up the same action gets harder.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you choose a level 8 chandelier swing.

Oh my god. Is a level 8 chandelier more dangerous than a gazeebo?

Think of it this way.

If a level 8 PC fighter and a level 5 PC fighter decide to both swing from a chandelier the same way to attack a for, do they get different DCs?

Nope same dc. 15. Becausr it is medium hard.

They are doing the same thing.

Exactly. So no need to decide for a challenge rarting for an unliving thing.

Most DMs choose the one level option.

That has to be proven.
5e: DC 15.

Nothing is forcing them to. The Player can say they do flips to deal more damage. Then you choose a higher DC to match the increased damage.

I increase it to hard. Dc 20.

 

[Bae'zel]

I'd also say that a lot of checks that should be Handle Animal tend to get parsed as Nature, making Handle Animal a similar "it's just not useful" skill.

Yeah this had bugged me for ages.

Nature is understanding how an ecology works, to identify what a FOUND animal or plant is (ah I see that plant is not in fact edible, but very poisonous).

Survival is being able to FIND an edible plant or animals to hunt to survive. To make a shelter. To find (and purify) a source of drinking water. Nature will tell you that Frostberries are nutritious, but Survival will help you actually find some in the wastes of Icewind Dale.

Animal handling is... befriending or calming animals. Training a dog. Riding a horse when it's nervous. Making a bear back down and not eat you.

That all gets muddied when some DMs and players go for using skills interchangably to the point that they might as well merge a few more.

I understand the difference between Nature and Survival, so if a player asked to roll one over the other when it doesn't necessarily fit properly, I'll give them a sight disadvantage.

Like handling horse: a PC who insists on using Nature (because they've read about horses their entire life) vs a PC with Animal handling won't get the same results, but if they manage to roll really well, it will be a pleasant surprise and a neat little moment.

 

[Bae'zel]

Oh my god. Is a level 8 chandelier more dangerous than a gazeebo?

Nope same dc. 15. Becausr it is medium hard.

Exactly. So no need to decide for a challenge rarting for an unliving thing.

That has to be proven.
5e: DC 15.

I increase it to hard. Dc 20.

Precicely: jumping off the stairs onto a chandelier is a set DC for everyone.

One PC wanting to just jump and land VS do 3 sommersaults will change the difficulty. The higher level PC with more invested in Athletics or Acrobatics may feel more confident that they can pull off a more elaborate stunt, hence the slightly higher adjusted DC (on the spot) that the lower level PC may not be able to match.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Yeah this had bugged me for ages.

Nature is understanding how an ecology works, to identify what a FOUND animal or plant is (ah I see that plant is not in fact edible, but very poisonous).

Survival is being able to FIND an edible plant or animals to hunt to survive. To make a shelter. To find (and purify) a source of drinking water. Nature will tell you that Frostberries are nutritious, but Survival will help you actually find some in the wastes of Icewind Dale.

Animal handling is... befriending or calming animals. Training a dog. Riding a horse when it's nervous. Making a bear back down and not eat you.

Which raises the question: WHY do you need 3 « this is how nature works » skills? You don’t need separate Religion skills for different religions, or for rites and rituals versus knowledge of the undead, or for ministering to your flock. Same thing but more for Arcana.

Some skills are parsed incredibly broad. You want to climb a wall? Same skill as the long jump. Some are incredibly narrow. What do you know about bears? Depends. If it’s knowing to play dead, it’s Nature. Unless it’s Animal Handling.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which raises the question: WHY do you need 3 « this is how nature works » skills? You don’t need separate Religion skills for different religions, or for rites and rituals versus knowledge of the undead, or for ministering to your flock. Same thing but more for Arcana.

Some skills are parsed incredibly broad. You want to climb a wall? Same skill as the long jump. Some are incredibly narrow. What do you know about bears? Depends. If it’s knowing to play dead, it’s Nature. Unless it’s Animal Handling.

Yeah. I did some serious combining for my game.

 

[Blue]

Oh, heavens no. You can Persuade or Deceive both of those examples in most campaigns.

No, if I'm roleplaying intimidating someone, neither Pesuade nor Deceive can be used. If you are talking about taking a non-intimidation approach, then it's falling outside the use of intimidation as a skill, so that's not relevant for the discussion.

Intimidate just makes them harden their hostility for you because you coerced them rather than working with them.

A bouncer convinces people in line not to try to push through and wait their time will harden their hostility? Intimidating a pickpocket to they leave the square will likely just make them affraid of meeting up with the PCs. You are making sweeping declarations that don't fit many uses of the skill.

Most (non-4e) DMs I've spoken to would handle these as:

1. Interrogated prisoner now hates you forever and will either be broken out of prison and added to your enemy's roster, or will actively spread antagonistic claims (true or false, doesn't matter) about you through the criminal underworld, making your future interactions with it harder. Because you didn't try to convince the interrogation target, you just "took the easy path".

AH, I understand it. They ACTIVELY PENALIZE use of the skill in an ANTAGONIST MANNER as DM.

Yes, then under any such red-flag-never-play-with DM, any skill or feature they determine to explicitly twist and contrive to put in place the worst possible consequences (such as freeing a prisoner who wouldn't otherwise be freed) will be a bad one to choose, but not because the skill is bad but because the DM is bad and actively penalizes you for using it.

2. All your intimidation did was put a lid on the boiling pot. It will get worse when the enemy finally does attack (which they eventually will, it just might take a while), because now they have time to gather reinforcements to match your threat.

Sure, just like someone who later figures out they were deceived might do the same. There are repercussions, as long as they are reasonable. Just like an NPC may decide never to mess with the people who scared them so.

3. The low-level criminal will answer now, but will (try to) save their own skin later by telling the boss what happened. Whether the minion survives this conversation is then kind of irrelevant; the boss now hates you for interfering with her "legitimate business."

Which happens with any social skills used to get information from that criminal. I have to thank you for so many great examples showing how intimidate and other social skills can have the same reactions from NPCs and therefore it isn't the worst skill. It's really useful that it's your own examples.

Outside of 4e, nearly every D&D DM I've ever had would go out of their way to make sure that every use of Intimidate came at a price. Almost always a price much higher than any rewards you would reap.

Yes, we've already discussed how a DM actively going after any use of a skill or feature is a problem of the DM, not of the skill. So again, irrelevant. Though I have to say, you are surrounded by a collection of really toxic DMs. I'd only play 4e with them, as it seems that's the place they aren't.