Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is Intimidate the worse skill in the game?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9539721" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>So, if I may, here's more or less the "logic" of this as I understand it, working from what you have said. Because your "if the situation is right" is kind of the whole issue. You have agreed that, <em>at least in principle,</em> using the Intimidate skill is bad, because it's hurtful and aggressive. You have granted that it is, <em>to at least some extent,</em> a "big results but you pay a price for them" option. The logic proceeds thusly:</p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Persuasion is inherently more risky than Intimidation, because the latter involves coercion, while the former involves actually changing the target's mind.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Because Intimidate is less risky in that sense, it must be more risky in some other sense.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Intimidating a target will make them resent the person who intimated them, at least a little bit.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">People you resent are ones that you will help oppose if given the chance.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The party has intelligent enemies who will exploit any foothold they can find to harm the party or at least inhibit them.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">As DM, it is your job to make sure player actions have consequences.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Hence, if the players Intimidate, it is your job to give that action a negative consequence, and thus to give the intimidated target(s) a chance to vent their resentment against the party, which the party's enemies will gladly exploit.</li> </ol><p>Another way to put it: You can use Intimidation at any time, but you cannot use Persuasion on people who are already hostile (=already hate you). Many DMs understand this to mean, "Intimidate <em>makes</em> people hate you." And to be fair, it's not like 3e didn't plant that seed, because IIRC if you Intimidate people it's <em>always</em> going to worsen their attitude toward you.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. That doesn't mean Intimidate doesn't make the target hate your guts and want to take you down.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's the "critical hit snake eyes" problem. Personally, I'd make some characters have a "passive Intimidate" score equal to their attack stat (Str for Barbarians and most heavy armor wearers, Dex for Rogues and most other ranged or dagger users), so long as they are actually trained in Intimidate and in a situation where personal power is relevant. That recognizes the impact of physical prowess or past killing, but doesn't guarantee success against particularly beefy or durable targets.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. But, as noted, the logic doesn't approach it that way. It approaches it from the perspective of "intimidate is what <em>bad</em> people do", more or less.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, it's nice to see at least one DM that doesn't see it as always needing painful negative consequences since it can be used in places where Persuasion can't.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, heavens no. You can Persuade or Deceive both of those examples in most campaigns. Intimidate just makes them <em>harden</em> their hostility for you because you coerced them rather than working <em>with</em> them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Most (non-4e) DMs I've spoken to would handle these as:</p><p></p><p>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 <em>convince</em> the interrogation target, you just "took the easy path".</p><p>2. All your intimidation did was put a lid on the boiling pot. It will get worse when the enemy finally <em>does</em> attack (which they eventually will, it just might take a while), because now they have time to gather reinforcements to match your threat.</p><p>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 <em>boss</em> now hates you for interfering with her "legitimate business."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Howso? It can at least be used to identify illnesses. It's certainly not as useful as it should be, but that's got nothing on the "actively makes your life harder" problem Intimidate has.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9539721, member: 6790260"] So, if I may, here's more or less the "logic" of this as I understand it, working from what you have said. Because your "if the situation is right" is kind of the whole issue. You have agreed that, [I]at least in principle,[/I] using the Intimidate skill is bad, because it's hurtful and aggressive. You have granted that it is, [I]to at least some extent,[/I] a "big results but you pay a price for them" option. The logic proceeds thusly: [LIST=1] [*]Persuasion is inherently more risky than Intimidation, because the latter involves coercion, while the former involves actually changing the target's mind. [*]Because Intimidate is less risky in that sense, it must be more risky in some other sense. [*]Intimidating a target will make them resent the person who intimated them, at least a little bit. [*]People you resent are ones that you will help oppose if given the chance. [*]The party has intelligent enemies who will exploit any foothold they can find to harm the party or at least inhibit them. [*]As DM, it is your job to make sure player actions have consequences. [*]Hence, if the players Intimidate, it is your job to give that action a negative consequence, and thus to give the intimidated target(s) a chance to vent their resentment against the party, which the party's enemies will gladly exploit. [/LIST] Another way to put it: You can use Intimidation at any time, but you cannot use Persuasion on people who are already hostile (=already hate you). Many DMs understand this to mean, "Intimidate [I]makes[/I] people hate you." And to be fair, it's not like 3e didn't plant that seed, because IIRC if you Intimidate people it's [I]always[/I] going to worsen their attitude toward you. Sure. That doesn't mean Intimidate doesn't make the target hate your guts and want to take you down. It's the "critical hit snake eyes" problem. Personally, I'd make some characters have a "passive Intimidate" score equal to their attack stat (Str for Barbarians and most heavy armor wearers, Dex for Rogues and most other ranged or dagger users), so long as they are actually trained in Intimidate and in a situation where personal power is relevant. That recognizes the impact of physical prowess or past killing, but doesn't guarantee success against particularly beefy or durable targets. Sure. But, as noted, the logic doesn't approach it that way. It approaches it from the perspective of "intimidate is what [I]bad[/I] people do", more or less. Well, it's nice to see at least one DM that doesn't see it as always needing painful negative consequences since it can be used in places where Persuasion can't. Oh, heavens no. You can Persuade or Deceive both of those examples in most campaigns. Intimidate just makes them [I]harden[/I] their hostility for you because you coerced them rather than working [I]with[/I] them. 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 [I]convince[/I] the interrogation target, you just "took the easy path". 2. All your intimidation did was put a lid on the boiling pot. It will get worse when the enemy finally [I]does[/I] attack (which they eventually will, it just might take a while), because now they have time to gather reinforcements to match your threat. 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 [I]boss[/I] now hates you for interfering with her "legitimate business." 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. Howso? It can at least be used to identify illnesses. It's certainly not as useful as it should be, but that's got nothing on the "actively makes your life harder" problem Intimidate has. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is Intimidate the worse skill in the game?
Top