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

[UngeheuerLich]

4e was built on the pre2e assumption that PCs all dabble in all adventuring skills in downtime so there were no skills. Fighters can pick locks in offtime and wizard can freehand climb on the weekend.

It was 3e that introduced the idea that if you didn't specifically train in something, you suuuuuuuuuuuccckkked at it.

2e has also proficiencies. I grew up witg those rules.

But I agree. 3e went overboard with it.

My fix was taking cross class skills as a baseline and encouraged* players not maxing every skill and instead spreading points.

*i only allowed skills to be raised above that line if you actually used them in the adventure or found a trainer.

Combined with generally using lower checks and also generally having NPC skill at that baseline, the game suddenly worked way better.
I was very annoyed that pathfinder did the exact opposite.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not really, mechanically.

It was.

Training was +5
Focus was +3
Your Primary mod at +2 to +4 and increases by +2 each tier
Your Secondary mod at +1 to +3 and increases by +2 each tier

So before level bonus your traineded skills could be +6 to +12 over untrained.

The level bonus only mattered when dealing with encounter a tier up or down.

IF narratively it was a bother, you could remove or lessen the level bonus to PCs and DCs.

That is the house rule that went around at ENworld and certainly other places. Remove 1/2 level bonus.

That's what I thought 5e was going to do.

And 5e did exactly that.

No half level bonus.

Proficiency bonus just raises from +2 to +6.

Expertise doubles it.

So over 20 levels you gain +0/+4/+8 over your first level bonus (0/2/4).

And this is +6 or +12 over untrained bonuses. Which is exactly what you get if you remove 1/2 level bonus as you have shown yourself.

 

[Minigiant]

That's correct. What is hard at level 1 is not hard at level 20, nor should it be. The problem is that 4e raises the DC so that instead of the level 1 DC now being easy to overcome, it's still hard. There's no point in gaining bonuses per level or every other level in 4e with that kind of scaling.

4e DCs don't scale with level.
The challenges do.
A Wooden door has the same DC at level 1, 10, or 20.
But at level 10, the door is an easy challenge. If the DM wants you to struggle at level 10, they place a dwarven-crafted steel door with gnomish locks with higher DCs.

This is another reason why Intimidate is seen as weak. Some PCs should be cowards and be a level 10 challenge to Persuade but a level 1 challenge to Intimidate. And vice versa.

The world is littered with the cowardly (use Intimidate), gullible (use Deception), lenient (use Persuasion), or impressionable (use Performance)
That's Politics 101.

 

[Minigiant]

]No half level bonus.

Proficiency bonus just raises from +2 to +4.

Expertise doubles it.

So over 20 levels you gain +0/+4/+8 over your first level bonus (0/2/4).

And this is +6 or +12 over untrained bonuses. Which is exactly what you get if you remove 1/2 level bonus as you have shown yourself.

5e forgot the +5 training bonus. And the optional+3 feat bonus.
Proficiency should have started at like +4. End at +8.

That was the critical error..

A 12 CHA fighter with the noble background should have a +5 to their Persuasion roll and +9 to Athletics.

5e patched their dread for big numbers by feat taxing non-experts to get expertise and handing expertise to ranger and bard out like candy.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Doesn't rule zero suggest that everything is prone to GM-fiat issues?

That's true in theory, but not in practice. Instead of using spells, I'll illustrate using the Echo Knight. The EK has an ability that lets them create a copy. They can move the copy. They can also swap position with the copy.

All these abilities are actionable and entirely free from GM-fiat with the exception of the abilities being unclear on whether or not the echo can fly. Nevertheless an EK player can be certain that his ability will work, because there is no practical margin for the GM to say that it won't. There is no opening in the rules for the GM to cockblock the EK by saying that his ability does not actually work.

This is in stark contrast to the intimidation skill which is by itself entirely reliant on GM-fiat.

I see the difference. But I don't buy that Intimidate is a bad (if subsumable) skill just because there might be a magic spell that moves a target 60 feet or makes that target have a -4 penalty on attacks for a round. I will buy the idea that D&D doesn't blend the two well.

My point isn't that Intimidate is bad just because there is a spell that does it better. My point is that Intimidate is bad by itself, because it lacks concrete rules, and it exists in a system where competent characters (read "casters") can avoid the fiat aspect entirely.

In my opinion WotC should trash the skill system and replace it with something more actionable, or augment it by adding features to help the skills. Or, alternatively, make spells just as fiat-reliant as skills.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

5e forgot the +5 training bonus. And the optional+3 feat bonus.

You get a +2 training bonus and another +2 expertise bonus.

Proficiency should have started at like +4. End at +8.

I would have started at +3.

That was the critical error..

Critical is overstatement.

A 12 CHA fighter with the noble background should have a +5 to their Persuasion roll and +9 to Athletics.

At what level?

5e patched their dread for big numbers by feat taxing non-experts to get expertise and handing expertise to ranger and bard out like candy.

Hmmhm...

 

[Minigiant]

At what level?

1st

You get a +2 training bonus and another +2 expertise bonus.

That's still less than +5.

The issue is +2 in a world were you roll a d20 isn't much.
You aren't good.
I have to roll a 14. You a 12. You aren't much better than me.

This is where 5e's problems lie.

Critical is overstatement.

Right amount of statement.

The main reasons why 5e has wonky skills and the Martial/Caster divide exists is because outside of # of attacks the bonuses are so low between PCs that you don't feel better than a dabbler.

A 1st level fighter with Athletics prof and 16 STR is +5.
A 1st level wizard with 12 STR is +1.
A 1st level cleric with 14 STR is +2
It's not a big bonus.

So without purposeful design or an additional subsystem, spell casting is the only way to display a shift in competency if you don't optimize the fun out the game.

5e has 3 CHA skills that do the same thing.
4e does too.
However 5e doesn't have the subsystem than make having access to all 3 skills in the party beneficial nor does it artificially make it beneficial that different PCs have different CHA skill nor aid in duplicates.
4e had Skill Challenges. Skill challenges made you want to have players pick different skills AND want some to have duplicates.

5e copied 4e's skills but forgot the system its skills were designed for.

4e made it where you wanted to know Intimidate because sometimes Bluff doesn't work and Intimidate had different social and combat powers.
5e lets you ignore Intimidate if you have a single CHA character with Persuasion proficiency.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1st


That's still less than +5.

The issue is +2 in a world were you roll a d20 isn't much.
You aren't good.
I have to roll a 14. You a 12. You aren't much better than me.

This is where 5e's problems lie.

I partly agree. I would have liked a slightly faster progression.

Right amount of statement.

Nah.
Depends what you want from a game.

The main reasons why 5e has wonky skills and the Martial/Caster divide exists is because outside of # of attacks the bonuses are so low between PCs that you don't feel better than a dabbler.

Puh. Difficult. We are speaking of adventurers. If you have too big of a difference between training and no training makes people just not try if their bonus is too low.
Instead I think being proficient should come with some kind of auto success or at least preventing critical failures.

Maybe: if you are proficient in skill x, you can't roll below 5 and you need to fail by 10 or more for critical failures.

If you have expertise, you can't roll below 10 and critical failure if you fail by 15 or more.

That way, proficient allows you to retry some things more easily and someone not proficient still has a shot at doing somethings.

I actually miss the auto success rules of 5.14.

A 1st level fighter with Athletics prof and 16 STR is +5.

Yes.

A 1st level wizard with 12 STR is +4.

+1 I guess... but chances are great tge wizard only has 8 or 10 strength. So with the exact same roll a wizard is a difficulty category worse.

A 1st level cleric with 14 STR is +2
It's not a big bonus.

The question is if you consider base stats as part of proficiency. In 5.14 one autosuccess score was stat-5. Which was brilliant as it made a big difference between 8 or 10 in cha or str. With 10, you succeed at very easy tasks like swimming in calm water or behaving at the king's diner table.

So without purposeful design or an additional subsystem, spell casting is the only way to display a shift in competency if you don't optimize the fun out the game.

Yeah autosuccess rules would have been my choice of subsystem.
Having too big of a difference between non proficient and proficient equally leeds to magic as the only reliable solution for many classes.

5e has 3 CHA skills that do the same thing.
4e does too.

So just focus on one.

However 5e doesn't have the subsystem than make having access to all 3 skills in the party beneficial nor does it artificially make it beneficial that different PCs have different CHA skill nor aid in duplicates.

Why do you think that in 5e only one is useful. I see all of them in use frequently. I also think somewhere in the rules you see that not every skill works anytime. I need to find it though.

4e had Skill Challenges. Skill challenges made you want to have players pick different skills AND want some to have duplicates.

But they were so badly executed that it was no fun. Don't we have some skill challenge lights in 5e rules? I need to look it up.
Actually I would not mind reintroducing skill challenges. Because if you introduce 3 successes before 3 failures, those 10% differences start making a bigger difference.

5e copied 4e's skills but forgot the system its skills were designed for.

I remember some kinda skill challenges. But I don't remember the place to look for.

4e made it were you wanted to know Intimidate because sometimes Bluff doesn't work and Intimidate had different social and combat powers.

I am pretty sure there is some advice in 5e for this too.

5e lets you ignore Intimidate if you have a single CHA character with Persuasion proficiency.

No.
Because not everyone reacts the same. There are a lot of situation where one is assigned a lower DC than the other.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@Minigiant
Actually in the rules glossary you can see that duplicates are useful, as you can't use the same approach again. So having 5 skill to use with the influcence action allows for 5 tries.

 

[Minigiant]

But they were so badly executed that it was no fun. Don't we have some skill challenge lights in 5e rules? I need to look it up.
Actually I would not mind reintroducing skill challenges. Because if you introduce 3 successes before 3 failures, those 10% differences start making a bigger difference

I think the main flaw, besides the initial off math, was that it was technical and people didn't want to read up technical stuff to do it right.

It also only works for multistage or cooperative challenges. So you had to pull them out sparingly or introduce those situations.

But most nonOld School fans don't run tracking, negotiation, mysteries, investigations, overland travel.

D&D is mostly a loosely goosey game.

I run skill challenges in 4e and 5e and it worked wonders.

Why do you think that in 5e only one is useful. I see all of them in use frequently. I also think somewhere in the rules you see that not every skill works anytime. I need to find it though.

It's isn't. But that's how D&D fans run it due to 3e's influence.