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

[Maxperson]

What if it is a problem of the books, and how the books guide the players and DMs?

Show me where in the books it says to have NPCs always, mostly, or even at all hate the intimidator.

 

[clearstream]

The 5e approach is not for the players to pick a consequence that they prefer. The 5e approach is for the DM to call for rolls only if there is a consequence for failure. He decides if there is one and what it is, at least by default.

Yes, and some posts upthread focused on character mechanical parameters and others on approach player described. I'm saying that player can consider consequences in choosing their approach.

I tend to look at who the NPC/creature is when making that decision. A devil or demon will likely harbor resentment regardless...

Upthread I suggested that this is preempting the roll in a way that motivates the complaint some are making. If the player rolls a success, why should GM penalise them? Rather, let the nature of a devil or demon indicate the consequences on a failure. Alternatively, if a devil or demon will always harbour resentment, then that cannot be at stake on the roll and player should know that is off the table for effect going in.

while a human or angel could easily not harbor any. It depends on circumstances, personality, the PCs, etc.

Possibly you can see here what I mean by "preempting the roll"? It can defuse some of the complaints in this thread to put punitive outcomes on a failure.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I see Deception as principally about getting another creature to believe something that is (in the fiction) false.

For me the lense of consequences separates each skill quite well. To lie and be caught out suggests different lines of consequence than unsuccessful negotiation.

If the player is bluffing their intimidation, I might have them roll both checks and decide what happens based on that. Maybe deception first, and if it’s believed then intimidate with advantage or maybe it’s a gimme. Depends on how good the first roll was.

 

[Minigiant]

A core issue is D&D encompasses so many styles and genres and tones that it can't stabilize around any form of combat, exploration, or social gameplay.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

One Scale.

Two scales.
1. Challenge Level.
2. easy, medium or hard.
Just look at the table.

The DC.

Which is derived in two steps.

Your level determines how difficult it is.

And if you chose easy, medium or hard.
And by the way. Younwere the one insiting it is not your level but challenge level.

I don't remember right now but I think it was 65% success on level with your primary and 45% on level for your tertiary.

Whatever. Totally convoluted.

Up or down 5% per 2 levels

Yeah. Becaise of 1/2 level bonus.

The issue is that the DMG didn't display over and under level DCs and DMs didn't do them.

The issue is that every skill scaled with 1/2 level. Even those you did not learn at all. If you think characters should pick up a bit of everything, ok. But then, don't scale DC by level and accept that everyone gets better.

And then just use DCs like 5e does on one scale:
Very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard, nearly imoossible.

No need to have to go through 2 steps:
What level is swinging on a chandellier and is it easy, medium or hard...

 

[MGibster]

Regarding "but if I bluff about why I'm scary isn't it deception?" This might happen, though it happens way more often with persuasion. Convincing someone might often involve presenting your case in the best possible light in a way that contains exaggerations, omissions or even outright lies.

I'm thinking Captain Kirk and the Corbomite Maneuver. In this particular episode, a powerful alien ship, with Clint Howard onboard, threatens to destroy the Enterprise. Kirk tells him the Enterprise included in its construction a substance called corbomite which will redirect all energy from an attack to the ship that it originated from tenfold. Clint Howard, having read through the Enterprise's data banks, says it's a lie, but Kirk assures him the Federation doesn't put such sensitive data on their computers. Is this Intimidation or Deception? I'd call it a Deception roll rather than Intimidation mainly because Kirk was telling a bald-faced lie.

But one of the nice things about D&D 5th edition is the DM can apply Advantage or Disadvantage to a roll based on the circumstances. I'd say out outrageous lie would likely result in Disadvantage being applied to the roll. Likewise, if you attempt to use Intimidation and threaten someone with something they're already worried about, I'd apply Advantage to the roll.

 

[Minigiant]

Two scales.
1. Challenge Level.
2. easy, medium or hard.
Just look at the table.
Which is derived in two steps

No.

It's one scale derived from 2 steps.

And if you chose easy, medium or hard.
And by the way. Younwere the one insiting it is not your level but challenge level.

Because it is.

270° Chandelier Smash is always DC 15 for 9 damage.

That is hard for level X PCs
That is medium for level Y PCs
That is easy for level Z PCs

270° Chandelier Smash does not level up when you level up.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No.

It's one scale derived from 2 steps.

Because it is.

270° Chandelier Smash is always DC 15 for 9 damage.

That is hard for level X PCs
That is medium for level Y PCs
That is easy for level Z PCs

270° Chandelier Smash does not level up when you level up.

Please show me the rules text with that order of operation.

Where it tells you to just chose a DC and then to look it up in the table that tells you that it is a medium difficulty challenge for level 1 characters or an easy challenge for level 8 characters.

This is the quoted text:

Example: Shiera the 8th-level rogue wants to try the classic swashbuckling move of swinging on a chandelier and kicking an ogre in the chest on her way down to the ground, hoping to push the ogre into the brazier of burning coals behind it. An Acrobatics check seems reasonable.
This sort of action is exactly the kind of thinking you want to encourage, so you pick a moderate DC: The table says DC 14. If she makes that check, she gets a hold on the chandelier and swings to the ogre.

From the quoted example the order of operation seems just the other way around.

I know for some people order of operation does not matter. But it is an important difference.

Of course, you could just say: "if you set a DC for an action, you can look up in this table how difficult it is on average for a character of level x."

Maybe you should flip the table around and sort it by DC instead of level.

Would have made a big difference.

So the text should have been:
"Sheila tries to make a chandelier swing. Since you want to encourage that kind of thinking you set the DC to 14 (slightly under standard medium difficulty DC 15). Since she only advanced to level 8, DC 14 is actually still a medium difficulty challenge."

But no. The presentation was different.

 

[Minigiant]

Please show me the rules text with that order of operation.

Where it tells you to just chose a DC and then to look it up in the table that tells you that it is a medium difficulty challenge for level 1 characters or an easy challenge for level 8 characters.

This is the quoted text:


From the quoted example the order of operation seems just the other way around.

I know for some people order of operation does not matter. But it is an important difference.

Of course, you could just say: "if you set a DC for an action, you can look up in this table how difficult it is on average for a character of level x."

Maybe you should flip the table around and sort it by DC instead of level.

Would have made a big difference.

So the text should have been:
"Sheila tries to make a chandelier swing. Since you want to encourage that kind of thinking you set the DC to 14 (slightly under standard medium difficulty DC 15). Since she only advanced to level 8, DC 14 is actually still a medium difficulty challenge."

But no. The presentation was different.

The presentation is flawed.

I constantly say 4e's presentation was terrible and its explanation was weak to those not fully bought in.

But D&D always had an assumption that DCs didn't increase with level and that PCs in a party could be of different levels.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The presentation is flawed.

I constantly say 4e's presentation was terrible and its explanation was weak to those not fully bought in.

So why are we arguing?

But D&D always had an assumption that DCs didn't increase with level and that PCs in a party could be of different levels.

Yeah. 4e did a lot to misrepresent itself.