Intimidation Guidelines and DCs

[Beelzebub1111]

How does your table handle the DCs and effects of the intimidation skill?

The DMG and PHB gives shockingly little guidance on this on how to determine difficulty and what happens when you succeed or fail on that roll, and was wondering how other tables handle it.

[Psyren]

How does your table handle the DCs and effects of the intimidation skill?

The DMG and PHB gives shockingly little guidance on this on how to determine difficulty and what happens when you succeed or fail on that roll, and was wondering how other tables handle it.

OneD&D suggests that for Influence, you start with DC 15 or the monsters' Intelligence or Wisdom, whichever is highest. That's as good a starting point as any if the standard "Easy/Medium/Hard/Very Hard" guidance isn't working for your table.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I rarely roll dice for intimidation as I am usually able to figure out how the NPC will respond to rudeness. I do this by listening to the 'how' of the intimidation, ask the PC what they expect the outcome to be, then try to imagine how the NPC will respond.

If I am uncertain about the response and magnitude, then I may call for the PC to use their ability score modificator appropriate to their 'how' (not automatically CHA) and make a contesting CON or INT or WIS roll. The bigger the difference between the two sides, the bigger the response.

Will they lose control of their bladder/bowels? Will they flinch? Will they defer and retreat? Will they stand up for themselves?

And no matter outcome of the roll, the party has a new enemy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Intimidation has two cases that, I think, need to be treated separately:

Intimidation as a combat condition (or other actively hostile thing). This is trying to scare someone into running, acting badly, surrendering, etc. Here, I'd model it as either an opposed Charisma[1] (Intimidation) check vs Wisdom saving throw or as an check against a fixed DC (10 for easily scared, 15 for less so, 20 for almost fearless, auto-fail for fearless). On a success (failed save/successful check), the target is frightened. What exactly they do depends on the individual and the situation.

Intimidation as a non-hostile thing. This is intimidation outside of the "swords are drawn" scenario, where you're trying to get them to do something specific. Stand aside, give information, etc. This uses the exact same resolution as any other social check[2]. Like any social check, it has the chance of making enemies.

[1] or Strength, as appropriate.
[2] ie the tables from the DMG with a flat DC depending on their attitude and the request. Or ad hoc automatic success/failure as appropriate.

[Tanarii]

The DMG has the rules you are looking for under Social Interaction in Chapter 8 (Running the Game) p244-245

[stoutstien]

I got rid of it. I use convince as the blanket skill trying to persuade something through conviction or otherwise intangible parameters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I got rid of it. I use convince as the blanket skill trying to persuade something through conviction or otherwise intangible parameters.

So now a hulking barbarian is just as good at sweet-talking someone as at scaring them. And in fact you can't be better at lying than at persuasive rhetoric or scaring people :smallconfused:

They seem radically different, with radically different plausible outcomes.

[stoutstien]

So now a hulking barbarian is just as good at sweet-talking someone as at scaring them. And in fact you can't be better at lying than at persuasive rhetoric or scaring people :smallconfused:

They seem radically different, with radically different plausible outcomes.
it's actually the opposite where just because you have high cha you don't become scarier than the hulking guy. Convince just means it has to have context first and foremost.

[PhoenixPhyre]

it's actually the opposite where just because you have high cha you don't become scarier than the hulking guy. Convince just means it has to have context first and foremost.

I'm not seeing it. Having high CHA makes you naturally better at things involving people. Any thing involving people. However I'm totally fine with letting people use other ability scores. That's inter-character issues. Which isn't what I'm talking about.

Removing proficiencies means that you can't specialize within a character. The hulking brute who smells of death and blood and generally talks in monosyllables or profanity is just as good at reasoned discourse as he (not someone else) is at menacing someone. The bard, the ultimate ladies' man (and mens' man, to be fair), with his elegant and subtle wit, his fancy clothes, and his languid manner, is just as good at staring down an orc as he is at conducting himself at a soiree. That's what doesn't make sense if you combine the proficiencies into one. Unless you go back and add in a bunch of other stuff, which just seems like undoing the work you just did.

[Skrum]

I can't say for sure how other DMs at the table I play at resolve it, but in general we have two situations -

1) free-form social interaction. This is like in the course of play, a situation arises and one of the players declares they want to make an intimidation roll. The DM says go for it, they roll, and it's compared to some arbitrary DC the DM set on the fly. Succeed, and the NPC(s) act in some way that's more favorable to the PCs goals. Fail, and they are more entrenched in opposition

2) a skill challenge. Our table uses skill challenges quite frequently. It's most often a way to navigate somewhere, but it's also been used for other situations as well, and sometimes in the course of describing a travel process, the players might meet someone or have a combat resolved by skill checks. In this case, the DM general sets a DC, describes what's happening, and then each player takes turns declaring what skill they're using and makes a roll against the DC. The object is to get X successes before Y failures.

The latter case is much more abstract uses of skills. The specific outcome isn't really described.

[MrStabby]

I lean away from flat DCs.

There is a bit of a tension between two legitimate sides. On the one hand, you ave the people who invested in Charisma because they wanted to be good at the social pillar of the game. Giving the same effective bonuses to someone who didn't is undermining their commitment.

On the other hand, it matering what is said as much as how it is sai or by whom realy helps develop the world and characers. "I try and convince the guard to let us in" is a bit shallow for my tastes; "I note the insignia on he guard's coat an make up a story about how was part of the same regiment, till I took an arrow to the knee, and how I was just getting back on my feet by opening a shop but all the murders in town drove away my customers so if I could just get in to speak to the noble it would be really helpful" makes for a beter game for me.

Finding a sweet spot to serve everyone is hard. Advantage/disadvantage helps a bit, but is pretty limited.

Then you have some things where both are on the same side and an opposed roll is a bit silly - if you are trying to convince someone of something thats true its cooperative and the DC will be deermined by how bady hey have been misinformed.

[Psyren]

I lean away from flat DCs.

There is a bit of a tension between two legitimate sides. On the one hand, you ave the people who invested in Charisma because they wanted to be good at the social pillar of the game. Giving the same effective bonuses to someone who didn't is undermining their commitment.

On the other hand, it matering what is said as much as how it is sai or by whom realy helps develop the world and characers. "I try and convince the guard to let us in" is a bit shallow for my tastes; "I note the insignia on he guard's coat an make up a story about how was part of the same regiment, till I took an arrow to the knee, and how I was just getting back on my feet by opening a shop but all the murders in town drove away my customers so if I could just get in to speak to the noble it would be really helpful" makes for a beter game for me.

Finding a sweet spot to serve everyone is hard. Advantage/disadvantage helps a bit, but is pretty limited.

Then you have some things where both are on the same side and an opposed roll is a bit silly - if you are trying to convince someone of something thats true its cooperative and the DC will be deermined by how bady hey have been misinformed.

There is indeed tension on both sides. This is compounded by the situation wheremost groups only have one "face," and so even when you have an utterly engaging social pillar, you tend to only be utterly engaging one out of your 3-6 (if not more!) players. And even if you can perfectly design social challenges to allow everyone in the party a chance to contribute, (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1256.html), there will always be players who simply aren't interested in that stuff.

At the end of the day, the combat pillar is always going to be D&D's primary focus - it's right in the name.

[da newt]

As a DM I try to resolve it without a role if that makes the most sense. This is very situational, but if the PCs make a good case, it's in the NPC's best interest and doesn't go against their character, I just role play it out as a success. Similarly if it's not in the NPC's interest and/or it goes hard against their character, I role play it as a fail. (of note my NPCs do tend to have a real desire to live and I try to play them 'realistically' as opposed to as if they were a single dimension baddie who will fight to the death even when it's obvious they have no chance)

If it's something that falls into the maybe range, then I like to use an opposed check and allow the PCs quite a bit of leeway wrt what skill they wish to use (within reason). I don't like flat DCs for influencing sentient creatures.

[MrStabby]

As a DM I try to resolve it without a role if that makes the most sense. This is very situational, but if the PCs make a good case, it's in the NPC's best interest and doesn't go against their character, I just role play it out as a success. Similarly if it's not in the NPC's interest and/or it goes hard against their character, I role play it as a fail. (of note my NPCs do tend to have a real desire to live and I try to play them 'realistically' as opposed to as if they were a single dimension baddie who will fight to the death even when it's obvious they have no chance)

If it's something that falls into the maybe range, then I like to use an opposed check and allow the PCs quite a bit of leeway wrt what skill they wish to use (within reason). I don't like flat DCs for influencing sentient creatures.

Just as a bit of a tangent - I have recently shifted a little more (just slightly) to the 'fight to the death' type of NPCs. In a world where the gods are real, they are magical, an afterlife is real and you can speak with people who have been and in a world where resurection is a thing, a little bit more of a bold approach is not totally insane. Not least where your NPCs that will actually start a fight are not normal people but rather the least risk averse people in the world.

[da newt]

Stabby - completely fair. Some folks are ride or die no matter what (especially if they really believe that they will be rewarded afterward), but IMO 'normal' folks are not that confident and default to 'what is best for me right now.' Admittedly, this is entirely driven by my belief that this is how most folks actually make decisions IRL, but there are certainly plenty of folks who are outliers too.

[Kane0]

My table uses the rule of thumb "Lets just say 13"

[JackPhoenix]

Depends on target, approach and goal, like with any other social interaction. Different beings react differently to different threats. Having a set of universal DCs appliable regardless of the circumstances of the scene is stupid (and thus, what WotC decided to go with).

[Slipjig]

I think it's helpful to frame Intimidation in terms of convincing the target that you CAN and WILL make some unpleasant happen for them if they don't do what you want. The DC is determined primarily on whether the threat the PC is making is plausible. If the PCs already beat someone up, they probably don't even need to make an Intimidation roll, Intimidation is there so you DON'T have to hurt people.

You can slide the difficulty up and down based on the apparent power level of the intimidator and the person being intimidated and the plausibility of the threat. Clearly-armed adventurers bullying a simple shopkeeper (let alone a tied-up prisoner) are going to have an extremely low difficulty. A bunch of adventurers trying to threaten a Duke in his own court where he is surrounded by his knights is going to be all but impossible (unless he has good reason to think the adventurers could thrash those knights).

You can also define success and failure as "relatively good" and "relatively bad" options. If a PC insists on trying to seduce a barmaid who is happily married (or of an orientation where she isn't interested in the PC hitting on her), success might mean she laughs and rolls her eyes before taking the next person's order, while failure means she shuts the PC down hard (and failing by five or more means she calls the bouncer over). In the example of vagabond adventurers threatening the Duke in his own court, success might look like the Duke finding the whole thing amusing and instructing his personal champion to thrash one of the PCs one-on-one (and if the PC wins, he suddenly takes them much more seriously), while failure has the guards throwing them out with a thrashing (or killing them if they draw steel).

[Chronos]

Quoth JackPhoenix:

Depends on target, approach and goal, like with any other social interaction. Different beings react differently to different threats. Having a set of universal DCs appliable regardless of the circumstances of the scene is stupid (and thus, what WotC decided to go with).
Someone on this board once gave an example of the PCs trying to get some information from a captured cultist. The cultists are fanatical, and have no fear of dying in service of their dark god, so any attempt to intimidate them with threats of death will automatically fail. But if the PCs have done their homework, then they know that this particular cult believes that salt will defile a person, and render them unfit for their god's service, so if they threaten to pour salt down the cultist's throat, that probably will work.

Another example from a game I was DMing: They were trying to intimidate a group of wererats. All of their attempts based on brandishing weapons were a failure, because the wererats knew that they were impervious to weapons. But then the dragonborn breathed on them, and that did hurt, so when the dragonborn then attempted to intimidate them, he got to roll for it (the hexblade, whose weapon counted as magical, could potentially also have done so-- I can't remember why it didn't work out for him; maybe he missed, and so they didn't realize his weapon hurt?).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Someone on this board once gave an example of the PCs trying to get some information from a captured cultist. The cultists are fanatical, and have no fear of dying in service of their dark god, so any attempt to intimidate them with threats of death will automatically fail. But if the PCs have done their homework, then they know that this particular cult believes that salt will defile a person, and render them unfit for their god's service, so if they threaten to pour salt down the cultist's throat, that probably will work.

Another example from a game I was DMing: They were trying to intimidate a group of wererats. All of their attempts based on brandishing weapons were a failure, because the wererats knew that they were impervious to weapons. But then the dragonborn breathed on them, and that did hurt, so when the dragonborn then attempted to intimidate them, he got to roll for it (the hexblade, whose weapon counted as magical, could potentially also have done so-- I can't remember why it didn't work out for him; maybe he missed, and so they didn't realize his weapon hurt?).

Along those lines, I just had a situation where a werewolf knew that the bear he was facing couldn't hurt him. Except he didn't know it was a level 7 moon druid. So it absolutely could. And when it did, he was in shock (effectively intimidated). If it'd been an interrogation, not a fight, he'd have not been able to be intimidated by weapons until they showed they could actually hurt him. And then that particular werewolf (who was more bravado than anything) would have been fairly easy to intimidate.

As with almost[1] everything ability check related, context is king.

[1] ok, there are a few cut-and-dried fixed-DC or fixed-opposition checks with well-defined outcomes that don't depend on context. Those are rather less common.

[Tanarii]

Depends on target, approach and goal, like with any other social interaction. Different beings react differently to different threats. Having a set of universal DCs appliable regardless of the circumstances of the scene is stupid (and thus, what WotC decided to go with).
It's been a little while since I checked the DMG, but if I remember the process it is:
1) play out the conversation. This may adjust the attitude of the person you are trying to influence depending on details.
2) DC is then based on two factors: adjusted attitude and how much you're asking for in terms of sacrifice/risk to the other person.

So not really a set of universal DCs. It's a set of universal DCs for a 2-factor adjustable sliding scale:
- adjust their attitude by various means
- adjust what you're asking for in terms of sacrifice/risk

It works with intimidation, but you do have yo put a little bit of thought into it. "Friendly" attitude isn't really what is happening so much as "very helpful right now, until you're considered a safe distance away in distance or time", for example.

Regardless, it gives DMs a base scale of what a DC 0, DC 10, and DC 20 are supposed to be able to accomplish. For those DMs hankering for example tables.

[kazaryu]

Someone on this board once gave an example of the PCs trying to get some information from a captured cultist. The cultists are fanatical, and have no fear of dying in service of their dark god, so any attempt to intimidate them with threats of death will automatically fail. But if the PCs have done their homework, then they know that this particular cult believes that salt will defile a person, and render them unfit for their god's service, so if they threaten to pour salt down the cultist's throat, that probably will work.

Another example from a game I was DMing: They were trying to intimidate a group of wererats. All of their attempts based on brandishing weapons were a failure, because the wererats knew that they were impervious to weapons. But then the dragonborn breathed on them, and that did hurt, so when the dragonborn then attempted to intimidate them, he got to roll for it (the hexblade, whose weapon counted as magical, could potentially also have done so-- I can't remember why it didn't work out for him; maybe he missed, and so they didn't realize his weapon hurt?).

interestingly, my PC's recently captured a cultist that was part of a group of people who were kidnapping people to sell them as slaves to a fire djinn. they antagonized about how to interogate him, presuming (not incorrectly) that he wouldn't be afraid of death). after a while they just approached him with the 'what can we do to get the location of your camp'.

dude was like 'oh, if you (referring to the paladin in the group) promise not to allow me to be harmed, i'll just tell you. if you wanna walk into the masters arms, its less work for me, and i'll get rewarded for your capture either way' Dude was cocky AF the whole trip just to make them *really* hate him. so that when the fight comes it'll be all the more satisfying for them to take him out. (oh he also later escaped, but thats not really relevant to the thread)

[greenstone]

I stick with Charisma for intimidation because successful intimidation is all about convincing the target that you are in fact willing to go through with the threat.

A character can be big and strong but if the guard doesn't actually believe that they are willing to attack them then they are not getting through the gate.

Character: Let us through or I'm going to bash you.
Guard: Look, you and I both know you're not going to follow through on that. Go away and stop wasting my time.

[JackPhoenix]

It's been a little while since I checked the DMG, but if I remember the process it is.

I'm not talking about 5e, but about the Influence button action they presented for D&Done.


I stick with Charisma for intimidation because successful intimidation is all about convincing the target that you are in fact willing to go through with the threat.

A character can be big and strong but if the guard doesn't actually believe that they are willing to attack them then they are not getting through the gate.

Character: Let us through or I'm going to bash you.
Guard: Look, you and I both know you're not going to follow through on that. Go away and stop wasting my time.

It's not necessarily that the target isn't intimidated, but that they don't react the intimidator wants them to. The guard may just tell the character to f off, or may call for reinforcements. Or, if scared enough, start begging for his life instead of doing something useful, and the other guards will react anyway.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think it's a mistake to always handle Intimidation as "you are trying to convince the person you will follow through on your threat". I think this approach sort of assumes that everyone's default state is "I will not be swayed by a brandished gun unless I am sufficiently convinced the gunman will pull the trigger", and I'm not so sure that's how everyone is going to react to a situation.

Simply showing what the threat is can be enough to compel someone. Not everyone is willing and able to take a chance and call a bluff, so whether the person is "convincing" or not is secondary to the actual displayed threat (weapons, muscles, injured allies).

It kind of moves Intimidation away from "will the threat of violence compel this person" to "did this person believe you would follow through or not", which seems like more the purview of Deception or even Persuasion. So the context may be ignored in this sense, because it's not that the cultist is such a fanatic that pain can't sway them, or that the henchman is more afraid of the gang leader than he is of you so he's willing to take some licks before betraying his boss. It's just that they didn't believe you.

And that in turn becomes awkward because you really were planning on following through on your threat (unless you were actually rolling Deception), so they didn't believe you, and then you start punching them. Then what? I guess they change their mind, so your failure was a success after all? Or everyone rolls Initiative, I suppose.

It's best to treat Intimidation as a genuine threat of violence, and the opposed check is checking whether the NPC can be swayed by that threat, or will take their chances with the violence. Checking to see if they believe the threat in the first place is treating the Intimidation as a Deception in my mind. Which is fine. If the PC is bluffing, then that makes sense. But then they should be rolling a Deception check, not an Intimidation check.

Also, I don't think the check should auto-result in enemies. People might be amused by the attempt, or impressed, and handle it differently. Context is key.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's best to treat Intimidation as a genuine threat of violence, and the opposed check is checking whether the NPC can be swayed by that threat, or will take their chances with the violence. Checking to see if they believe the threat in the first place is treating the Intimidation as a Deception in my mind. Which is fine. If the PC is bluffing, then that makes sense. But then they should be rolling a Deception check, not an Intimidation check.

Also, I don't think the check should auto-result in enemies. People might be amused by the attempt, or impressed, and handle it differently. Context is key.

I'm in full agreement with this. It's important for the players (ie OOC) to be clear as to what they're saying. If they're really serious about resorting to violence, then it's Intimidation. If they're bluffing, Deception.

Means, goals, context. That's what matters to set the entire check from "what ability score + what proficiency (if any)" to "what's the DC (if it doesn't auto-succeed/auto-fail)."

[stoutstien]

I'm not seeing it. Having high CHA makes you naturally better at things involving people. Any thing involving people. However I'm totally fine with letting people use other ability scores. That's inter-character issues. Which isn't what I'm talking about.

Removing proficiencies means that you can't specialize within a character. The hulking brute who smells of death and blood and generally talks in monosyllables or profanity is just as good at reasoned discourse as he (not someone else) is at menacing someone. The bard, the ultimate ladies' man (and mens' man, to be fair), with his elegant and subtle wit, his fancy clothes, and his languid manner, is just as good at staring down an orc as he is at conducting himself at a soiree. That's what doesn't make sense if you combine the proficiencies into one. Unless you go back and add in a bunch of other stuff, which just seems like undoing the work you just did.

To be fair I gutted charisma as well so it's not an issue on that front. I dislike having a golden boy stat that acts as a gate for an entire pillar while also being extremely strong in the other 2 thanks to being used by over half the classes as their primary stat.

[LibraryOgre]

My default is a "passive insight" DC, if I don't feel like playing it out.

[Chronos]

Quoth Dr.Samurai:

Also, I don't think the check should auto-result in enemies. People might be amused by the attempt, or impressed, and handle it differently. Context is key.
This is true. I'm thinking of my valor bard, here. He's a show-off gladiator, who enjoys his job very much. If someone starts in on how they're going to beat him up, he'll gladly go a few rounds with them. And win or lose, so long as they don't kill him or do anything dirty like marring his facial hair (leaving scars is fair game, though), he's going to be more friendly with them afterwards.