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

[Minigiant]

So why are we arguing?

I dunno.

Yeah. 4e did a lot to misrepresent itself.

It really did. 4e assumed it would be embraced. It was WRONG!

 

[Maxperson]

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.


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.


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.

I don't agree that it preempts the roll. Just because you succeed on the die roll doesn't exempt you from logical consequences. You may succeed at your climb check to get into the restricted area, but you will still face the consequences of climbing into a restricted area if you are caught. Success on the roll doesn't make those consequences go away, and having those consequences doesn't preempt the roll.

Success on the roll = success at the action. Not more than that.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Not according to the rules. Since you have twice avoided showing me anywhere that says these things are encounter based when I've asked, and the rules say it's based on PC level, I'm forced to conclude that you are just wrong here. The rules do not back up your unsubstantiated claim that it's based on encounter level.

 

[clearstream]

I don't agree that it preempts the roll. Just because you succeed on the die roll doesn't exempt you from logical consequences. You may succeed at your climb check to get into the restricted area, but you will still face the consequences of climbing into a restricted area if you are caught. Success on the roll doesn't make those consequences go away, and having those consequences doesn't preempt the roll.

Success on the roll = success at the action. Not more than that.

I like that example. An implication I'm proposing be considered of the RAW that

The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure.​

​

Is that success, being not "meaningful failure", ought not to result in meaningful failure. I think your example is more about scope of effect. While that appears clear for entering a new location, it's less clear when it's about the behaviour that is itself what the player is targeting with the skill. A nearer analogue would need to focus on the climb itself.

Say a GM described a wall festooned with shards of glass to deter climbers: can players declare an action to climb avoiding the glass? Similarly then, can players declare an action to cow the demon sufficiently well that resentful or not it won't undermine them?

To my reading the RAW puts it explicitly on the table for GM to say -- the damage can't be avoided / the demon can't be cowed.... but more empowering play could be to apply an appropriate DC and put damage / mutiny on the side of consequences. (Perhaps also making use of the fail by 1 or 2 / fail by 5+ rules )

 

[Maxperson]

I like that example. An implication I'm proposing be considered of the RAW that

The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure.​

​

Is that success, being not "meaningful failure", ought not to result in meaningful failure. I think your example is more about scope of effect. While that appears clear for entering a new location, it's less clear when it's about the behaviour that is itself what the player is targeting with the skill. A nearer analogue would need to focus on the climb itself.

Say a GM described a wall festooned with shards of glass to deter climbers: can players declare an action to climb avoiding the glass? Similarly then, can players declare an action to cow the demon sufficiently well that resentful or not it won't undermine them?

To my reading the RAW puts it explicitly on the table for GM to say -- the damage can't be avoided / the demon can't be cowed.... but more empowering play could be to apply an appropriate DC and put damage / mutiny on the side of consequences. (Perhaps also making use of the fail by 1 or 2 / fail by 5+ rules )

See, the bolded is where we are not seeing eye to eye. I'm not saying that the result is a meaningful failure. I'm saying that there can be different meaningful(both good and bad) consequences for success.

If the party is in a dry grassy plains and wants to set the grass on fire to deter the orcs following them, success means that they deter the orcs. That doesn't mean that the fire won't spread across the dry plains and threaten the village that's a mile away.

That said, often there will be no consequence either way for success. Circumstances will determine.

 

[Weiley31]

I like Passive Scores.

 

[Chaosmancer]

(Emphasis mine.) That’s not quite right: per RAW the resolution must contain consequences that matter.

True, but this doesn't really change the point I was making, or make Intimidation any better.

If Athletics "isn't something you have picked to be a skill you have" can you say how it works to declare "crap I tackle the guy!" and yet the same is not true of Intimidation in some equally clutch social situation? It seems as if one would have to be committed to a weaker effect or worse consequences... but why? What motivates that?

You are looking at this from the wrong perspective perhaps.

DM is RPing, the bad guy stole the thing, he is running, you don't get ten minutes to carefully consider all of your actions because tension is high, this is bad, they are going to escape... so you react with what hits your brain first. You tackle the guy. Are you skilled in Athletics? It doesn't matter. What matters is you need to stop him from escaping and that is the only action you can think of in the moment. And it is dramatic, now the villains' escape with the thing relies on your roll.

Let us say, on the other side, your team has captured a goon. You have plenty of time to discuss strategy, figure out who wants to interrogate, how they want to interrogate him. There isn't that tension and speed where you are just reacting to information. I can't think of what a reflexive intimidation to get information would even look like.

On trial in a court? In a noble's party? These are all scenes that are going to take their time, give you plenty of time to suss out an approach. And very, very rarely is Intimidation when you don't have the intimidation skill going to be seen as a viable plan. Not never, but rarely. And most of the time when I'm picturing a clutch, tension filled, think on your feet social challenge.... deception is the skill that comes to mind. Because a LIE will often have that sort of moment more than threats.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A related approach that I can think of for those committed to strong consequences for Intimidation would be to leverage having those in mind and balance with strong effect.

Frex where negotiating might reach a price that would be accepted, threatening gets it at the price you've chosen to pay (maintaining the apparatus of coercion, whatever that is.) Or where a creature can be simply "unwilling" to do X, they may be "hesitant" about accepting a cost (coercion).

RAW suggests that one test for a skill is -- are groups readily able to imagine consequences for failure? Where the answer is yes, that's a pro, not a con. Some criticisms in this thread appear to amount to -- Intimidation risks making our play interesting! If that is the concern, speaking to the G consideration in RPG one might focus on  effect... the cost (if that is what one finds oneself committed to) ought to be validated by the leverage afforded in the play.

But, you need to consider where those effects could possibly happen without derailing the game.

Paying a lower price isn't going to be a huge impact on the game usually. The consequences are barely interesting between having 50 gold left and 300 gold left. It usually doesn't matter.

The only space I can see for this overcoming BBEG's, which has major narrative problems.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I like that example. An implication I'm proposing be considered of the RAW that

The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure.​

​

Is that success, being not "meaningful failure", ought not to result in meaningful failure. I think your example is more about scope of effect. While that appears clear for entering a new location, it's less clear when it's about the behaviour that is itself what the player is targeting with the skill. A nearer analogue would need to focus on the climb itself.

Say a GM described a wall festooned with shards of glass to deter climbers: can players declare an action to climb avoiding the glass? Similarly then, can players declare an action to cow the demon sufficiently well that resentful or not it won't undermine them?

To my reading the RAW puts it explicitly on the table for GM to say -- the damage can't be avoided / the demon can't be cowed.... but more empowering play could be to apply an appropriate DC and put damage / mutiny on the side of consequences. (Perhaps also making use of the fail by 1 or 2 / fail by 5+ rules )

I think the issue is, as much as I hate to call upon the word, simulationism/realism/verisimilitude.

Intimidation is, at its core, the tool of a bully. It is meant to cow people into submission. And no one likes being bullied. Even if you are terrified to the point you will never willingly oppose the bully... if you happened to find them beaten bloody in a prison cell, you might feel like in their weakened state you stand a chance to get revenge. OR you might go to a stronger, higher power who is in the position to harm or take down your bully.

And, many DMs, have a moral component to their games. The Baron is a villain who needs to be taken out because he bullies and subjugates the people. The bandits are bullying people on the road to take what doesn't belong to them. The biggest thing about evil planar organizations is how they mistreat those below them, working through fear and intimidation to force others to follow their orders. So, players engaging in intimidation are using the tool used by villains. And a DM with a mind towards "your actions have consequences" is going to pull on that thread. Just like they would if you stole something valuable from an ally, or if you betrayed an organization on a mission.

Now, maybe that won't happen with Bob the Shopkeep, he doesn't matter enough to be a call back. But the more you use Intimidation, the more you get a reputation of getting what you want through coercion, threats, and fear.... the more and more likely it becomes that the DM is going to be like "you are the villain in someone else's story, therefore you need to be confronted by those you have downtrodden". But this doesn't happen with Persuasion.

It can happen with Deception, to be clear, but the narrative is different in that instance. The narrative is less "you have brought doom upon you" and more "you have been caught in your own web, how do you get out of this crisis?" And anyone sitting down to play a consummate liar is LOOKING for that style of story, they want that narrative pay-off at some point. The person using Intimidation might not be looking for the time when they are confronted as the cold-hearted villain of some NPCs hero arc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

2014: "Intimidation. When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check."

I dunno about you, but I'm really really not going to like someone who "influences" me "through overt threats, hostile actions, [or] physical violence."

It's also specifically said, later in the DMG, that Intimidation checks are among the things that are liable to worsen a target's attitude (from friendly to neutral or neutral to hostile).

Beyond that? It's quite possible for a book to never explicitly say something, and yet still encourage it to happen. Isn't that the core argument of all the folks who claim that modern games encourage "playing from the character sheet"? The books never, ever say to do that. They don't have even a single cite-able line that says to look to your character sheet first and never engage in problem solving. (Quite the reverse!) Yet the argument gets made, over and over and over and over and over again. Can I count on you to stand with me against that argument in the future, if it shows up, since you require explicit textual backing in order for something to be the fault of the books or rules, and not absolutely 100% the fault of a dismissable few bad DMs?