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

[Chaosmancer]

I find Intimidation to be the worst social skill, because like I believe Redhammer said, sometimes the results of succeeding are just as bad as failing.

Let us say that you are needing to get passed a gate guard, and you decide to stomp up to him and declare that you don't need to pay the toll, right stick man? You successfully scare the wits out of him, and get passed.... Of course people saw you, word spreads, and now you've got the entire Garrison keeping an eye on you because you threatened one of their members and broke the law.

Sure it is possible to Intimidate someone via an external threat "You should lend us your support governor, because that Gnoll army is going to kill all of us if you don't." but.... isn't that persuasion? Presenting reasoned facts and obvious consequences to get someone to agree with your point of view? And what if the gnoll army doesn't exist? Are you intimidating them by trying to evoke fear, or decieving them because you are fabricating a story?

And the third nail in the coffin for me, is that Intimidate only works on the weak.

The Ancient Dragon. The Warlord on his mountain of skulls. The Lich or Vampire Lord. The High Priest of the Church of Light. The Dragonslayer Paladin. The Old Emperor of the Largest Empire in the World.

None of these figures are going to be intimidated by you. If your level 8 barbarian flies into a beserk rage and smashes a table, he might intimidate a barkeep, but the Death Knight who just demanded you hand over the relic? He couldn't care less. He is beyond you.

But, a clever enough player could find a way to work Deception or Persuasion. They can craft a response that appeals to these individuals, or lie that is convincing enough to fool them. And I think this highlights to limits of Intimidation so clearly. It only really works on people the same strength or weaker than you, people who you can scare, not with lies, not with logic, but with threats. And, if they are weaker than you... generally you don't care as much. Those are bumps in the road, compared to the types of situations that really matter.

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I find intimidate is used a lot in our games - my players like to try and intimidate enemies to surrender, so they don't have to kill them. Sometimes it works.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

As a DM, I use intimidation rolls a lot (I let my players roll for it a lot).

A typical situation is: PCs and an NPC are negotiating. PCs can't immediately get what they want, and because they are a chaotic bunch (both in and out of character) they usually try some shenanigans: bribing, lying, but also threatening. Threats are often covert and between the lines, but a threat nonetheless. So that is an intimidation roll. Success means the NPC gives in, fail means negotiations continue. Obviously, if they just pull out 6 knives and put them at the throat of the NPC as a means of intimidation, a fail would mean the end of negotiations and probably start of combat.

Remember that the DM determines when the players roll. I have one player who frequently states "I would like to intimidate [the NPC]", to which I always answer: "how would you do that?". It has happened that he ended up rolling a persuasion or performance instead of intimidation, based on the description that followed.

 

[Coroc]

Thread title. All this talk about alternate ability use on skills brought up the old 'use STR for Intimidate' and it got me thinking about Intimidate and how is SUCKS.

Animal Handling is a pretty close second because more DM and players forget how important it would actually be in a pre-steam society and make it far too situational... but I still think Intimidate is worse.

The reason is that Intimidate will usually make things worse in 75% of the time you try to use it to force someone to do something. If you fail you usually shut down the entire social encounter right then and there, and even if you do succeed, that NPC is probably gonna hate you for quite a while. It's almost always a bad idea unless you're dealing with someone you're ready to fight.

At best it can be used to make enemies surrender and cut down the 'mopping up' phase of combat? But usually the DC isn't gonna be easy, and how can you trust someone who would do or say anything so you don't kill them?

Maybe Intimidate should have been rolled into Persuasion and just be a way to go about it and be left to the DM, like a lot of thing in 5e...

Anyway, discuss!

I houserule that a fighter can intimidate with STR, if he is a dwarf he may even use CON for it.

Besides that, it really depends on the context and your DM.
E.g. player intimidates a city watch to let them pass after the gates are closed, no fight will occur in any case, worst outcome is the party stays outside. If they succeed otoh the guard might be gruffy for another 30 minutes or so. Not every dispute leads to a life or death blood feud, not even in D&D.

Animal handling in the groups I play comes into play on two occasions: Player tries to ride some critter or player tries to pacify some critter. It is not used to much but there is no other fitting skill imho to replace it easily.

Worst skill? No, I would put Slight of Hand and Animal Handling below Intimidation, and probably History as well.

...

Sleight of hand is a super skill. I am glad my Ranger with criminal background has it. It can be used to open locks, pilfer pockets disarm traps but also to conceal a dagger.

History/Religion/Arcana again depends on the cunning of your DM. In another game system I play some guy basically plays a kind of knowledge cleric who uses equivalent skills a lot. If it is supported by lore (Loads of work for the DM and some consistent frame by the setting) it can lead to magic moments at the table, when some old texts, inscriptions or artifacts lead to clues no one has dreamt of.
It is difficult to do in D&D but it is not impossible, it requires both a player who knows how to play that style and a DM who has enough substance in his setting to support it.

A skill I am not to content with is stealth, but again that is how my DM handles it, it is not some invisibility at will for him, but rather you really have to work out, how you hide and keep quiet in his games

 

[FrogReaver]

Combine perception, deception and intimidation under a new skill called “communication”.

your ability to convey your message in such a way that people go along with it.

 

[Asisreo]

It can be used to open locks, pilfer pockets disarm traps but also to conceal a dagger.

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

 

[Undrave]

Sleight of hand is a super skill. I am glad my Ranger with criminal background has it. It can be used to open locks, pilfer pockets disarm traps but also to conceal a dagger.

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

What Asisreo said.

I find intimidate is used a lot in our games - my players like to try and intimidate enemies to surrender, so they don't have to kill them. Sometimes it works.

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.

 

[Haldrik]

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.

Yeah, Intimidation works with 4e-style "bloodied" in mind, when losing half hit points. This is when someone becomes "roughed up" (minor bruising etc). This becomes a moment to make a kind of "morale check", and is when Intimidation comes into play, effectively to scare away or force surrender, thus conclude the combat encounter successfully.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

There is a "morale system". The DM evaluates what their morale should be based on the circumstances, and sets a DC to intimidate them into surrendering if someone wishes to try to intimidate them into surrendering.

Do your enemies never surrender, flee, hesitate, or break rank because there is no formal system for enemy morale?

 

[Undrave]

There is a "morale system". The DM evaluates what their morale should be based on the circumstances, and sets a DC to intimidate them into surrendering if someone wishes to try to intimidate them into surrendering.

Do your enemies never surrender, flee, hesitate, or break rank because there is no formal system for enemy morale?

Not at all, but often times the DM just decides to have them run away without us doing anything. It's all DM fiat so you can't really build a character who is good at making enemies surrender, for exemple.

What I'm saying, mostly, is that this usage is too niche to be worth a full skill proficiency. And if that's the best use of Intimidate it shouldn't be considered a non-combat skill at all.

Skills can have application in combat, but far and wide they should be your main way to interact with the world outside of combat. A Skill that's best used in Combat is a combat ability and shouldn't be grouped with the skills at all. IMO.