Intimidating, how should it work?

[SetArk]

Hello everybody, i'm having some problems figuring out how intimidate works on 5.0.

An simple exemple for you guys..
I've a Thug, who have +2 on intimidate checks.
Let's say that one of the players, is corned by two thugs, and they want to intimidate the player.
What would be the DC be? The player passive wisdom? Or insight? Or even an contested intimidate roll from the players?

Or, lets go around, and a player wants to intimidate some npc, what would be the DC for the test?
Should i use something of the target npc, or just determine an apropriated DC following the table at page 174?

Ohh, and another thing i've searched but haven't found.. There isn't any more demoralizing or combat intimidation?

Again, sorry for any grammar erros :X English isn't my home language :x

[Ralanr]

I think people roll Will...but my group has contested it with Cha sometimes. I'm not sure.

[MrStabby]

The way I would do this might be a perception check. The thugs say what they will do and how hard they are claiming to be. The player must appraise them to see if he/she believes what they say they will do/how capable they are.

[jaydubs]

Not sure if it's listed out in 5e or not. But in my experience, social checks are best reserved for interacting with NPCs, and shouldn't dictate how a PC reacts. When NPCs roll well on say, an intimidate check, just up the descriptive language on how scary they sound. If it's persuasion, just be more eloquent in your RP of that NPC. Roll well on deception, just act it out as if the NPC is telling the truth (still allow insight to see through it).

[Camman1984]

i often have issues with rolling of social interactions with players. They usually just ignore the roll anyway, for example even a huge result on an npc's bluff check will not convince some players that the npc is telling the truth.

I had a player who ALWAYS wanted to scare npcs and would roll intimidate at every oppurtunity, but would not ever accept when the black dragon who was threatening him was scary and would still back chat, even when his character was mechanically frightened.

[HoarsHalberd]

Essentially if you have good Roleplaying + rollplaying players it should be a contest between either Wisdom(Insight) or Charisma(Intimidate), players choice. Cha(Int) allows one to counter intimidate and the stronger "force of will" makes the other back down. Wis(Insight) lets the character calmly assess the situation and make their own decision. If a player can make a good argument for a decent skill then let them do it. They could use Str(Int) if they're a strongman to contest the roll or some other decent argued ability.

[Ralanr]

Essentially if you have good Roleplaying + rollplaying players it should be a contest between either Wisdom(Insight) or Charisma(Intimidate), players choice. Cha(Int) allows one to counter intimidate and the stronger "force of will" makes the other back down. Wis(Insight) lets the character calmly assess the situation and make their own decision. If a player can make a good argument for a decent skill then let them do it. They could use Str(Int) if they're a strongman to contest the roll or some other decent argued ability.

I'm saddened that nobody at my table has done this yet. I need to start intimidating NPC's by breaking solid objects in front of them.

[HoarsHalberd]

I'm saddened that nobody at my table has done this yet. I need to start intimidating NPC's by breaking solid objects in front of them.

Yup, I'm a great fan of allowing players to do things if it's sensible. "My character jumps the pit with his strong legs." Strength Athletics. "My character does a diving leap to jump the pit." "Dex Acrobatics." It cuts down the scenarios where the players find one avenue and assume they can't progress because they lack the requisite skills.

[SharkForce]

i often have issues with rolling of social interactions with players. They usually just ignore the roll anyway, for example even a huge result on an npc's bluff check will not convince some players that the npc is telling the truth.

I had a player who ALWAYS wanted to scare npcs and would roll intimidate at every oppurtunity, but would not ever accept when the black dragon who was threatening him was scary and would still back chat, even when his character was mechanically frightened.

if they should be afraid, while this is a lot more work on your part (in tracking information at least), you could always try not telling that player how much damage they're taking when they're afraid, and make it sound like they're taking a lot of damage... never knowing quite how hurt they are and how close to death may go a long ways towards making him at least play cautiously :P

[EvanescentHero]

if they should be afraid, while this is a lot more work on your part (in tracking information at least), you could always try not telling that player how much damage they're taking when they're afraid, and make it sound like they're taking a lot of damage... never knowing quite how hurt they are and how close to death may go a long ways towards making him at least play cautiously :P

Reminds me of the game Rogue Legacy. That also seems effective...once. After that it'll get annoying.

[MadGrady]

I've taken to rolling Perception, Insight, Investigation checks behind the screen so that the players don't know the roll results. This allows me as a DM to feed them information or misinformation depending on roll and result without them knowing what it is.

This has helped immensely in these situations.

In answer to the orginal question - I would say contest between Intimidation check vs Wisdom Save (since there are no will saves in this edition lol). Advantage/Disadvantage given for great/poor roleplaying.

They can roll - but I still want them to roleplay it out, and I will award a good attempt.

[rollingForInit]

Unless the player actually wants to roll something because he or she is unsure how the character would react, no roll should ever dictate how a PC reacts. You might have them roll Insight to see if they believe the threat is genuine or not, because rolls determine what the PC's know, but from there it should be up to the player to decide how the character handles it. If the PC believes that the threat is real, how will the character act? Try to fight? Run? Smooth talking? Negotiate? That's a player choice, and it should never be taken away.

This is the same thing as the DM setting an impossible DC on an NPC where a specific action will never succeed, because it just wouldn't work with the character's personality.

Social checks are just that, after all - social checks. They aren't magical compulsions that can force someone to do something against their will. They do not remove a character's free will. They're just social pressure in one way or another. Rolling to determine if a character follows another characters instructions should only ever be mandatory when there's magical persuasion or compulsion involved.

[Malifice]

Unless the player actually wants to roll something because he or she is unsure how the character would react, no roll should ever dictate how a PC reacts. You might have them roll Insight to see if they believe the threat is genuine or not, because rolls determine what the PC's know, but from there it should be up to the player to decide how the character handles it. If the PC believes that the threat is real, how will the character act? Try to fight? Run? Smooth talking? Negotiate? That's a player choice, and it should never be taken away.

This is the same thing as the DM setting an impossible DC on an NPC where a specific action will never succeed, because it just wouldn't work with the character's personality.

Social checks are just that, after all - social checks. They aren't magical compulsions that can force someone to do something against their will. They do not remove a character's free will. They're just social pressure in one way or another. Rolling to determine if a character follows another characters instructions should only ever be mandatory when there's magical persuasion or compulsion involved.

I roleplay the intimidate o the PC. Then I make an intimidate check. If its high enough I advise the PC that his Character is pretty scared (or cowed or whatever) by the dude, but let him role-play it accordingly (imposing a minor mechanical disadvantage 'behind the scenes' such as disadvantage on any attacks made by the PC until he lands one on the scary dude perhaps).

If the PC role-plays it in an appropriate manner (generally to his characters disadvantage) I award inspiration.

[Inevitability]

I'd roll Intimidate, then imply whether this enemy is very tough or not depending on it.

Low intimidate:

"The thug tries to look scary, but doesn't really succeed. Clearly, he has no faith in his combat power if he resorts to intimidation."

High intimidate:

"The mighty warrior screams something in a foreign language, then draws his sword. Maaaaaaybe you should avoid fighting this guy."

[rollingForInit]

I roleplay the intimidate o the PC. Then I make an intimidate check. If its high enough I advise the PC that his Character is pretty scared (or cowed or whatever) by the dude, but let him role-play it accordingly (imposing a minor mechanical disadvantage 'behind the scenes' such as disadvantage on any attacks made by the PC until he lands one on the scary dude perhaps).

If the PC role-plays it in an appropriate manner (generally to his characters disadvantage) I award inspiration.

I still think that goes a bit against player freedom. I do like the idea that role-playing such a situation well gives you inspiration, that's a great incentive to really role-play it well and not just power through. But also consider that there are suggested personality traits for backgrounds such as "I can stare down a hellhound without flinching". A character like that probably wouldn't care about most threats.

The best way to do it, imo, is to really describe how someone is trying to be intimidating. You can do it in a whole lot of different ways, and different characters will likely react very differently to those different attempts. The DM should never be the one to decide what actually scares a PC. The player should. The DM should, however, encourage PC's to play according to their characters, so if someone has previously said that their character is really uncomfortable being threatened by authority figures, then rewarding the player for actually following through on that, even if it gives them a disadvantage, should be rewarded.

[Malifice]

I still think that goes a bit against player freedom. I do like the idea that role-playing such a situation well gives you inspiration, that's a great incentive to really role-play it well and not just power through. But also consider that there are suggested personality traits for backgrounds such as "I can stare down a hellhound without flinching". A character like that probably wouldn't care about most threats.

The best way to do it, imo, is to really describe how someone is trying to be intimidating. You can do it in a whole lot of different ways, and different characters will likely react very differently to those different attempts. The DM should never be the one to decide what actually scares a PC. The player should. The DM should, however, encourage PC's to play according to their characters, so if someone has previously said that their character is really uncomfortable being threatened by authority figures, then rewarding the player for actually following through on that, even if it gives them a disadvantage, should be rewarded.

When I said roleplay the intimidate - that meant according to his character. If his trait was 'I stare down hell hounds without flinching' Id expect to see that trait roleplayed (would also grant inspiration).

[Daishain]

My group has handled persuasion checks made to and between PCs thus:

The roll indicates how effective the roller can describe themselves as delivering whatever the message is. For instance, a barbarian in our group got a 4 on an intimidation check, she decided that her dog kept jumping up and licking her face while she was trying to stare down the other party member. An earlier persuasion check of 26 prompted the Paladin to start channeling MLK Jr in his passionate speech.

The target PC in question chooses how their character would react. This is generally made in good faith, with an understanding that the PC had better have strong reason to resist a check of 20+, (if decently roleplayed, failing to come up with something appropriate to say/describe wastes the roll), but even a spineless coward would likely stand up to the barbarian in the previous example. And yes, the character's personality traits are expected to be the principle factor.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm saddened that nobody at my table has done this yet. I need to start intimidating NPC's by breaking solid objects in front of them.

Be sure to break the NPC's stuff to drive the point home, demonstrate your PC's strength, and assert dominance.

[Bubzors]

I'd roll Intimidate, then imply whether this enemy is very tough or not depending on it.

Low intimidate:

"The thug tries to look scary, but doesn't really succeed. Clearly, he has no faith in his combat power if he resorts to intimidation."

High intimidate:

"The mighty warrior screams something in a foreign language, then draws his sword. Maaaaaaybe you should avoid fighting this guy."

This is how I handle it. Gets across the point and can influence the player greatly if they are actually roleplaying

[Vogonjeltz]

Hello everybody, i'm having some problems figuring out how intimidate works on 5.0.

An simple exemple for you guys..
I've a Thug, who have +2 on intimidate checks.
Let's say that one of the players, is corned by two thugs, and they want to intimidate the player.
What would be the DC be? The player passive wisdom? Or insight? Or even an contested intimidate roll from the players?

Or, lets go around, and a player wants to intimidate some npc, what would be the DC for the test?
Should i use something of the target npc, or just determine an apropriated DC following the table at page 174?

Ohh, and another thing i've searched but haven't found.. There isn't any more demoralizing or combat intimidation?

Again, sorry for any grammar erros :X English isn't my home language :x

It depends.

If the player wanted to intimidate the NPC, I'd make it a DC check as an action (or, if in combat, substitutable as a melee attack).

Not formally, as part of intimidation, no. There are class features that do that for the Berserker and Battlemaster, among others.

If you want to nonmechanically intimidate a PC (i.e. not an ability that requires a saving throw, but a use of the skill), have the NPC do something that the player can roleplay off. i.e. Have them act menacing. If the player is really meant to be in potential danger, but just shrugs it off, follow through with consequences.

There's an excellent scene in the movie Chinatown that does this where the main character, a private detective, is confronted by two goons and he mouths off when the little one threatens him. In response the big one grabs and holds him (say Grapple into Restrained from the Grappler feat) and the little one pulls a switchblade knife, slides it up the detective's nostril, and slices it.

[Ralanr]

Be sure to break the NPC's stuff to drive the point home, demonstrate your PC's strength, and assert dominance.

I was actually considering taking their weapon and breaking it in front of them. I got advantage on strength checks to break objects after all (No rage required). :smallbiggrin:

[Xetheral]

I never roll social skills against the PCs. If I want to show how skilled an NPC is in a given skill, I'll have them roll the skill against another NPC, and make sure the players see the die roll and hear me announce the result of the check before describing the target NPC's reactions.

Particularly if your players know you build NPCs like PCs, finding out an NPC has a high skill bonus goes a long way towards establishing the level of threat in the players' minds.

For example, if the BBEG needs to intimidate his chief lieutenant into fighting the PCs, and shows off his super-high intimidate bonus, the players are likely to be somewhat cowed by their foe's higher-than-expected level, and therefore more likely to play their characters as similarly cowed.