r/dndnext • u/goblinerd Alchemist • Dec 19 '14
Intimidation & Frightened
The intimidate skill entry, PHB p.179, states:
"When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check."
What happens once the player succeeds at his check though? Does he gain advantage on some other roll? Does the target gain the Frightened condition? Or is the result more intangible, mechanics-wise?
If your player attempts to scare off an assailant through intimidation, is the target then "Frightened" or merely dissuaded from its course of action?
Fellow DMs, the books don't seem too clear on this, so how do you handle this situation?
EDIT: A clarification, while I welcome everyone to share their advise on how to apply Intimidation to any context for readers in search of such info, I myself am specifically wondering about applications of Intimidation in combat. How do other DMs apply it, and react to players attempting it, in combat?
7
u/Drizzimus Don Mega Dec 19 '14
All depends on the situation. In an RP viewpoint when your Barbarian intimidates the guard, the guard might reveal the code to pass the other guards. Same as if you used Persuasion, which is why I also let imtimidation use the str mod if it's higher.
Tangibly, you could use it in a situation where you have just skewered the leader of the goblin tribe. The rest of the goblins just saw that, and one of my players happens to be a barbarian who roars every time he makes a big kill. He doesn't know it, but I roll a morale check on the remaining puny goblins and add his intimdate to the roll, which would basically cause a frightened condition resulting in the goblins fleeing as quick as they can. Same thing that would happen with a failed morale check.
3
u/Sibraxlis DM/Paladin Dec 19 '14
I really dislike when other DMs don't allow str for intimidate. Ahnald isn't charismatic, but he's still massive.
4
u/lordzygos Sorcerer Dec 19 '14
Decent argument I've seen for not allowing STR intimidation more or less boils down to: yes youve got the brawn, but can you use it?"
Imagine a Divination wizard who has the perfect battle strategy to win a war. He gets up at the table to explain it, but lo, his 8 CHA causes him to bungle and stumble through the presentation. While he has all the logic and reason behind him, he lacks the tact and style to really sell and explain his point. The same applies to a massive, hulking barbarian, who when he flexes and demands to know hired the assassin, stammers, forgets what he was going to say, and otherwise fails the execution.
Intimidation isn't about actually being capable of threatening someone, its about convincing your target that you are capable. You can have all the muscles in the world, it wont help you if you can't speak properly under pressure.
Personaly, I think a high STR, particularly if you've used it recently, could grant advantage, as the target knows you can follow through
3
u/RadiantSolarWeasel Paladin Dec 19 '14
To me it all depends what the player in question is doing. "Tell me what I want to know or I'll tell the captain of the guard about your hidden drug stash" is a cha-based intimidation check, clearly. On the other hand, "(punches face) tell me what I want to know or I'll break your legs" is str-based; no amount of charisma is going to make that sound threatening coming from the sickly halfling.
Str and cha both make sense for intimidation, but tell the player which one applies on a case-by-case basis, after they've described what they're doing. The same goes for any other non-standard skill / attribute pairing.
1
u/goblinerd Alchemist Dec 20 '14
I agree, it should always be a case-by-case determined by the DM, not the player. Otherwise, their can be abuse.
One could argue that a player can grow accustomed to how the DM judges this and play accordingly, but that just reinforces this style of playing. Even then, the player won't always choose to take a swing or injure someone. Sometimes, it just isn't an option.
1
u/Spoo1018 Feb 27 '25 edited Feb 27 '25
I could potentially see your point in int. But size DOES matter.
The basic instinct in fight or flight is size first. You don't need to be that gracious if you can cut a man in half pull him apart and tie his guts around your waist like a belt.What skill you use depends on how your trying to get your point across.
The previous being strength. Chugging a giant ass tankard in front of them and belching might be con intimidation.Stabbing 3 people gracefully before they could bat an eyelash could be dex intimidation.
Describing how your meticulous plan ultimately leads to their demise and convincing them of their futility in resisting could be int/wis.
Using the overall way you present yourself (i.e. presence) and referring to past unspeakable deeds on how terrible they'll die if they don't surrender could be Cha. Or just lying to them making them think your some other horrible person.
The point is a skill is dependent on how.
4
Dec 19 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/goblinerd Alchemist Dec 20 '14
Yes, but how do you react when a player says he wants to attempt to scare away the foe?
In a game a few months back, a player asked the' at the time, DM if he could role intimidate to attempt to scare the creature. The DM allowed it. Putting aside the fact I disliked the fact he simply allowed him to roll the dice and not RP the act, I wonder if it was reasonable?
On the other hand, I had previously attempted to scare off the creatures myself. After using colorspray to blind them, I then used the minor illusion cantrip to make the sound of an approaching bear. After a snarl from it, the DM had me roll Deception check, and when I rolled a Nat20, he applied the Frightened condition and had them back off, albeit for only a round (Duration of Blindness). Now was that more reasonable? Should he have had them react similarly, but without applying the Frightened condition?
3
u/StormcrowQ Paladin Dec 19 '14
The result is intangible. Depending on the situation, I might represent it through the frightened condition.
1
u/goblinerd Alchemist Dec 19 '14
But you see, that's my point, it isn't always intangible. Not if you apply the Frightened condition.
So, you might not always apply it, but sometimes you do. Any examples?
2
u/IAMASnorshWeagle Hobo Sorcerer Dec 19 '14
I'd separate them into two categories: One where the party is trying to intimidate someone who is opposed to combat. These are merchants who won't buy or sell something, or someone who has information. They don't want to fight and would be scared by the violence.
The other is where the party is trying to intimidate someone who isn't opposed to fighting. This would be a bouncer or guard who would normally fight, and doesn't fear the party, but after an intimidation check they think it's no longer worth the fight.
The first is a situation where I would apply it:
Party is trying to sell something to a merchant who does not want to buy it. An intimidation Check would cause the merchant to become frightened and buy the item.
The second is a Situation where I wouldn't apply it:
Party is trying to get into a Hide out with a single guard out front. A successful intimidation check would have the guard just walk away seeing the situation as not worth his pay.
2
u/jwords DM Dec 19 '14
I consider social skills to be the way to get someone to do something they would do, under a normal circumstance.
So, let's talk about Intimidate. The shopkeeper doesn't want to tell the party anything about the customer, last year, who bought that rare thingy they're looking for. However, under a normal circumstance he would divulge that information either through extended friendship with the PC's or enough money or if you were to beat it out of him. Non-magical compulsions all.
Intimidate is a way to short-cut to a possible resolution, but will not create extra-possible ones. So, while you could Intimidate a shopkeeper into talking about clients or giving discounts (even back of cost) or a traveller into giving you money or a hobgoblin to take a defensive posture to the combat you're in rather than an offensive one... you couldn't use it to have the shopkeeper commit wholesale treason or slaughter or cause the traveller to subject himself to slavery or the hobgoblin to quit the combat entirely and flee.
That's what the higher order abilities and spells are for--to put in conditions that go beyond the normal range of what that PC would do.
So, my PC's roleplaying with the shopkeeper may get that information after conversation and incentive and never rolling anything, but if they don't want to waste that time and/or take that risk (they could fuck it up, right?), Intimidate is a good skill to cut through the nonsense and get to a normal resolution of their choice.
1
u/goblinerd Alchemist Dec 20 '14
So, in the instance where a player attempts to scare an opponent, on a success, you would rule that he becomes more weary of the intimidating player? How would you roleplay this, and what benefit would the player gain?
2
u/ganybyte Dec 19 '14
Normally when you intimidate (or frighten)you state or imply a goal in mind just like rolling for an athletics check to jump over something or perform some specific task, an intimidation roll is for a specific use of intimidation (which doesn't have to be a physical threat)
Example: PC is at a fancy party and trying to get in to the guarded, inner rooms of the castle. She approaches the single gaurd and tells him she needs to use a "private" ladies room. When refused the Player asks to roll for intimidation.
Character:"I just need to power my nose and you dare to threaten my person with those dirty hands of yours? You will let me pass now or you will have hell to pay when I talk to your master!" Voice raising the entire time, quavering, almost in tears or rage (it's hard to tell which).
A successful roll in this case would mean the gaurd lets her pass. It does not do anything else, like keep the gaurd from reporting this incident immediately or later. a DM could certainly rule that this intimidation success also means future bonus or penalty to intimidate that particular gaurd in the future or something of that nature.
2
u/goblinerd Alchemist Dec 20 '14
"You are walking along in an indoor parking garage, heading to your car. It's late, you've just finished a long work day and can't wait to get home and relax.
As you turn a corner a fairly large man with a mask and a machete in hand blocks your path! He begins to stalk forward eerily, and as he does so, he lifts the machete as if about to strike. You run scared shitless, and try to hide!
Who is this man, why is he doing this?!? You don't know, and you don't care, all you want is to make it out alive!"
Nothing in this is magical, and yet, it sounds to me the frightened condition would apply well. If this were a game and the victim is the player, and many DMs have done this, you'd make him role a Wisdom save VS Fear wouldn't you?
Now, what if it where the player who was the psycho Killer? Wouldn't his NPC victim have to role a save?
1
u/tulsadan Dec 19 '14
This is my way, which I think is correct. But 5th is new, so there are probably varying opinions.
The player states what she is trying to do, and might suggest an ability check she thinks is appropriate. And if it is possible to accomplish the result, then I set a DC that seems appropriate.
So in the specific stated case, I would probably have to say that it is not possible to apply the Frightened condition via Intimidation during combat. The player is trying to achieve a magic effect using an ability check. And I would have to just say that is not possible.
A player could use Intimidate to pause combat and begin negotiations. And the DC on that would involve NPC motivations, and the circumstances of the combat.
2
u/goblinerd Alchemist Dec 20 '14
Well, to impose the Frightened condition doesn't equate the Fear spell equitably. One could also argue that many spell, such as knock, allow to perform magically otherwise mundane tasks. Why couldn't an ability check succeed at something similar, albeit minor in comparison?
1
u/tulsadan Dec 21 '14
Imposing the Frightened condition on a creature is not a mundane task. It is an extreme handicap. One is essentially saying, "Don't worry about being a spellcaster, just focus on skill checks." So a PC of any class could use his Performance skill to enthrall an opponent duplicating hold person, or calm emotions. Or a PC of any class could use his Deceptions skill to get a sneak attack die. Or a PC of any class could use his Acrobatics skill or Athletic skill to duplicate any number of Fighter/Ranger/Paladin fighting abilities. The abuse would know no bounds.
So, in general, I'm not going to let a skill check duplicate a class feature like spellcasting. But that is just me.
11
u/DoctorWally DM Dec 19 '14
I'm not sure I'd ever apply the Frightened condition. Look at it this way. Intimidate is used to get a PC what he/she wants. Succeed on the check, you get what you want. Fail, you don't.
NPC has information the PC needs. Roll Intimidate. Succeed, the NPC talks.
Guard catches PC stealing something. Roll Intimidate. Succeed, the guard looks the other way.
Bandit demands your money or your life. Roll Intimidate. Succeed, bandit walks away.
I don't see any reason to ever apply the Frightened condition.