D&D 5E (2024) Rank 5e skills from most useful (1) to least useful (18)

[Hussar]

But you totally can intimidate (or persuade) an hostile opponent to give up the fight. Otherwise, there would be no "hostile" disadvantage to checks (there would be no check at all). "Intimidate a monster" is clearly listed in the Influence action, for instance.

IME, when I say, "I want to use intimidate to make the NPC surrender", the DM's either set the DC ludicrously high or simply don't allow it. Because the rules don't specify how you can use Intimidate to force an NPC to surrender, it's just not even worth the attempt. The nice thing in 4e is that it was pretty clear how you could do it and what the DC's were. 5e's hand wavey approach means that it's usually not worth the attempt.

 

[Parmandur]

IME, when I say, "I want to use intimidate to make the NPC surrender", the DM's either set the DC ludicrously high or simply don't allow it. Because the rules don't specify how you can use Intimidate to force an NPC to surrender, it's just not even worth the attempt. The nice thing in 4e is that it was pretty clear how you could do it and what the DC's were. 5e's hand wavey approach means that it's usually not worth the attempt.

It is spelled out in the new PHB and DMG, though, but these things are very dM dependent.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well, maybe it should matter if they want to do it...?

But why? They succeed. No roll needed. I tend to let proficiency grant some degree of auto success for routine things and if there is uncertainty, have them roll. It's like rolling to make breakfast. We just say you did and move on.

 

[ECMO3]

IME, when I say, "I want to use intimidate to make the NPC surrender", the DM's either set the DC ludicrously high or simply don't allow it. Because the rules don't specify how you can use Intimidate to force an NPC to surrender, it's just not even worth the attempt. The nice thing in 4e is that it was pretty clear how you could do it and what the DC's were. 5e's hand wavey approach means that it's usually not worth the attempt.

I find DMs create a DC based on a situation and how a fight is going and the good DMs are good at doing this. Hired mercenaries in it for the money who are losing - low DC, phanatical culitists who don't care if they die - high DC, Fiend you are going to banish anyway if you beat him - impossible DC.

The problem with the 4E approach is it led to exploits and moreover if there is a hard mechanical number which overrides free will and common sense, why can't NPCs do it to PCs and get them to automatically surrender?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

IME, when I say, "I want to use intimidate to make the NPC surrender", the DM's either set the DC ludicrously high or simply don't allow it. Because the rules don't specify how you can use Intimidate to force an NPC to surrender, it's just not even worth the attempt. The nice thing in 4e is that it was pretty clear how you could do it and what the DC's were. 5e's hand wavey approach means that it's usually not worth the attempt.

Well many times a player would want to spend their action attempting to end a battle with intimidation it's because their side is not doing (or not likely to do) so hot, and that obviously is going to be a very difficult DC for obvious narrative reasons.

Other times its because the individual player doesn't want the battle that other people at the table have contrived to make happen or the players don't want a fight that their decisions and dice rolls have made happen. And it might not be narratively logical for intimidation to be hard in these situations, but the DM shouldn't let a single skill check easily negate what the rest of the table wants, or negate choices having consequences.

But often the DM just doesn't want you to succeed at that check. While it's even less "fair", the DM is a player too, and a player who had homework. It's bad enough that they have to prep battles that never end up happening at all, sometimes due to a charisma check of some sort. Certainly for my part when I've had to figure out initiative, set up the battle map, and settled into the tactical combat mindset I consider the time for rhetoric to be over, and am irritated by the player who is still trying to do diplomancy rather than help their team figure out the combat tactics which will carry them to victory. Now I'm fair-minded enough to still let a really amazing intimidation check spoil my fun and waste my time if I allowed the roll to happen, but I don't expect all DMs to be.

Part of the problem is that charisma checks are one of the most one-sided parts of the game. The DM doesn't get to make a simple skill check to intimidate, persuade, or decieve the PCs into surrendering or fleeing or just not starting a stupid and unexpected fight they did no prep work and will now have to look up and juggle three different stat blocks for on the fly. Their sympathy for players using such checks as endruns around playing the combat game is not going to be infinite.

Now if you've already effectively won the battle and want surrenders rather than 1 or 2 more rounds of mop up work that is probably tedious for everyone, then you're likely to find much more achievable DCs.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If it was me, perception at least would be some kind of saving throw. Independent of stats. Like death saving throws. And some classes may add their proficiency bonus to it.

Why? Because the DM's guide asks for saving throws if it is a reaction to something. Rolling perception as a reaction to something haopening, how many people play the game is wrong by that definition.

And rolling a wisdom saving throw also feels wrong, because fighters should be good at guarding...

 

[I'm A Banana]

But you totally can intimidate (or persuade) an hostile opponent to give up the fight. Otherwise, there would be no "hostile" disadvantage to checks (there would be no check at all). "Intimidate a monster" is clearly listed in the Influence action, for instance.

Oh, it's a great use in theory.

In practice, no, I'm not going to let you frighten Orcus into giving up and begging for his (un)life because one person made a high roll and now my climactic fight is scuttled.

This isn't a problem 4e really dodged, btw. Though it limited the valid targets to being creatures you've already bloodied, I still don't think many DMs would, in practice, let you force the bloodied ancient dragon to surrender just because you made a good skill check. Talk about an anticlimax. Intimidate was arguably better in 4e (I'd argue that!), but it did have problems.

This is quite close to the same problem that "save-or-suck" / "save-or-die" spells have, and related to why holding a knife to someone's throat isn't really a reliable way to threaten them in D&D.

Which, to me, goes back to monster design and the function of combat in the game. I want a game where...

1. Some (maybe most!) encounters can be ended with a good Intimidation check (or a quick Fireball or slitting someone's throat). These should still drain some resources, but don't require a lot of decision making or die rolls.
2. Encounters that are meant to be climactic aren't ended in any of those ways -- they have to play out. These can be tactically rich and should definitely contain the possibility of a TPK (even if that possibility is kind of distant). They are exceptional and risky and you don't get to Hold Person the villain and then just wail on them. Characters who use encounter-ending abilities in more climactic encounters should still contribute a bit by the use of those abilities, it just shouldn't end the fight (ie: Intimidate causes Frightened status; Fireball still does damage; Hold Person might burn some HP off the monster as they resist, etc.).

D&D 5e (and 4e before it) are all type 2. D&D 3e was probably too much type 1 (5MWD and Rocket Tag originated there, after all). My AD&D experience is fractured enough that I don't trust my gut entirely, but I get the vibe that it was Type 1, but could swing against the PC's just as easily as it could swing for the PC's.

All of which is just to point out that the game isn't set up to let people make good use of the Intimidate skill. Even if the rules explicitly tell you that you can intimidate creatures into surrendering, if it's just not going to be fun, it's not going to happen in practice. Gameplay routes around rules that don't serve it (usually).

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I don't think so, at least not in my case, as I've never touched 4E (an edition that didn't appeal to me at all), nor anyone in my groups save one or two exceptions. And I don't see how 5E would have worked against that, to the contrary. See for instance (DMG24) :



Or (same source) :



There is also numerous call to appeal to players' preferences, and an entire paragraph devoted to "respect for the players". All in all, 5E (be it 14 and 24) tries to empower players, in my view, and is a step back from the adversarial DM days. (Maybe 4E did the same, it's entirely possible.)

It's amazing how much better a tabletop experience can be for all involved when people actually read what's in the damned books. There's a certain king of the hill meme that comes to mind here...

 

[BenjaminPey]

In practice, no, I'm not going to let you frighten Orcus into giving up and begging for his (un)life because one person made a high roll and now my climactic fight is scuttled.

Neither will I, but that's besides the point. I think the rules are simple, clean, and useful, here: NPCs can be willing, unwilling, or hesitant, as determined by the DM. The first two won't necessitate any roll. A willing NPC will accept, an unwilling one will refuse. So we're left with the hesitant.

Orcus won't be, surely. But these marauders who thought they were going for an easy prey (how they were mistaken!), after a round or two? I don't see a reason why they couldn't be. The rules give us the tools for it, at least.

All of which is just to point out that the game isn't set up to let people make good use of the Intimidate skill. Even if the rules explicitly tell you that you can intimidate creatures into surrendering, if it's just not going to be fun, it's not going to happen in practice. Gameplay routes around rules that don't serve it (usually).

But it could be more fun. Obviously, if everybody is here around the table for their 6-8 encounters-a-day dungeonny adventure and everybody's fine with combat taking most of their playing time, maybe you won't see frequent uses of Intimidate, because nobody at this table would find this fun.

But now picture a table where combat is supposed to be one or two twenty minutes interruption in a two-hour long roleplay session. Maybe everybody would be pleased if that band of marauders don't overstay their welcome?

In my games, lot of combats end before a side is at 0 hp. The losing side will surrender or try to parley most of the time. I prefer it like that, my players prefer it like that, it allows us to cram more actiony scenes in our cramped sessions, everybody wins.

This game is design to entertain a lot of people, among them people with many differences in taste and ways of play. The skill system being fast and loose, simple and DM-oriented mean that they won't be used the same among all these different tables. And that's perfectly fine.