Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Aetherium Sep 02, 2014 21:21:53	After reading and re-reading the section on ability checks, I'm stumped... How does your opponent resist your attempt at intimidation? In other systems, this resist is handled via WILL, but no such stat in 5e. My gut feeling is to treat it like a contested stealth check vs. perception, but what would contest intimidation? Constitution? But that's usually just a physical thing. Insight, to "see through" the attempt? If not contested, perhaps a simple save vs. CHA with a DC = the intimidate roll? I know the DM could just set an arbitrary DC but that doesn't feel very realistic in taking into account the opposition.   Thoughts?
#2 McFlizzle Sep 02, 2014 21:37:40	RP that invovles skill checks is greatly subjective. I run them on a per topic basis setting the DC on the topic as that character sees it.
#3 Thank_Dog Sep 02, 2014 22:11:21	Aetherium wrote:
#4 E-Tallitnics Sep 02, 2014 22:22:44	Aetherium wrote:
(Reply to #3) Aetherium	If we didn't need rules to spell things out for us, why would Wizards have ever bothered creating the Player's Handbook? Seems to cover most things quite nicely and I was hoping for some insight... Maybe I'd overlooked something. But hey, thanks for the pseudo-hostile and mostly useless response.     Thank_Dog wrote:
#6 Aetherium Sep 02, 2014 22:26:16	Thanks. So, just a straight-up WIS check then unless both people are flexing their guns. Makes sense.   E-Tallitnics wrote:
#7 Kentus Sep 03, 2014 0:11:08	Normally you should use Intimidation for NPCs. Just decide on a DC.   Against players: Do what you think is best. Since I personally don't like players rolling against each others, as long you can roleplay it, I don't use any rules there.
#8 Thank_Dog Sep 03, 2014 0:22:00	Aetherium wrote:
#9 Captain_Kobold Sep 03, 2014 2:38:46	I'd probably oppose with either Insight, or a Wisdom or Charisma saving throw.
#10 gregsc Sep 03, 2014 5:10:44	I give an opposed Charisma roll against the result of the Intimidation roll.
#11 mellored Sep 03, 2014 6:26:56	I use the passive defense.   1d20 + Cha + Intimidate vs 10 + Wis. Success = fear.
#12 Alynn Sep 03, 2014 6:57:48	In this case, where it is a player being intimidated I would use wisdom (insight).   I'd use it to really allow the player to decide how they react.   DM: The orc walks up to you and tells you he is about to slice the neck of your partner if you don't give him the information. DM: He is trying to intimidate you, roll a wisdom (insight) check. Player: 17 DM: You are 100% sure that he will carry out his threat.   Then it is on the Player to role play based on that information.
#13 Lipfi Sep 03, 2014 7:16:59	I think only DC based on every particular case have sense. For example human u are trying to intimidate may be surrounded by his allies and he won't be easy to intimidate even if he has low wis and cha... He may also be exceptionally strong or know you're treats are bluffs.
#14 mellored Sep 03, 2014 7:25:51	Lipfi wrote:
#15 gregsc Sep 03, 2014 10:28:32	I eyeball each situation to determine if Intimidate is even an option. There's no use in an Intimidation check against someone surrounded by cronies, just like there's no use in a Climb check when there's nothing to climb.
#16 alienux Sep 03, 2014 11:25:12	Thank_Dog wrote:
#17 Zyph Sep 03, 2014 11:22:22	Aetherium wrote:
#18 Noon Sep 03, 2014 20:41:12	Thank_Dog wrote:
#19 Psikerlord Sep 04, 2014 0:41:18	Dm judgment call, as it should be imo. Being able to intimidate an enemy into surrender shouldnt be hardcoded, or you'll get minmaxers abusing it.   For me, depends on situation. Intimidating a guy on the street - intimidate vs charisma/wisdom contest. Intimidating city guard, same, but with disad. Intimidating a PC? Not gonna happen, NPCs cant do that to my PCs. We just roleplay it. Intimidate the BBEG? Not gonna happen, unless some very special circumstances, and I'd have to adlib it.
#20 Illithidbix Sep 04, 2014 14:16:47	I'm sure the DMG will have guides on dealing with this, since it focuses on NPC and Monster reactions. Yes, it's a little awkward it's not out for a few months.   Until the DMG comes out:   Basically to me, intimidate is not a check where there is "succeeding or failing", causing a set reaction or not. it's an attempt to influence behaviour. The change you get is either is desirable or not.  It's not a case of “Roll X on your Intimidate check to impose the Frightened condition”, that's what things like the Fear spells do. - I wouldn't be adverse to doing that if it was a circumstantial awesome thing in a fight, but it would require more than just making a check.   Unlike a deception check where they either see through your lies or believe them: if you try to intimidate someone, it'll change their behaviour, positively or negatively for you.   Low roll = They don't take your threat seriously, but they know you tried to threaten them, they may respond with ridicule, aggression or raise the alarm, depending on circumstances.   High Roll = They take your threat seriously, they might back down, accept your terms, try and flee or attack you as a priority target, depending on circumstances.   Personally I also steal from Dungeon World the requirement of “leverage” when making a check. This can be as simple as threats of violence from a position of obvious strength. But player parties are often outnumbered...   If I had to use stats I'd use Charisma or Wisdom Saving throw. Either the creature makes a saving throw of a DC equal to your intimidation roll or perhaps you just roll against their “Passive saving throw” (10+ saving throw bonus) if you don't want to have two rolls. Possibly Charisma as I think they intend willpower to be less of a wisdom thing these days.
#21 Danny_Montanny Sep 05, 2014 5:07:49	For interaction, an opposed Wisdom (Insight) check is usually what I'd go with. There are a lot of good ideas here, though. Another one you could add, and is what I do, is to use a sliding scale to judge the contest. Did the check succeed/fail by 5 or more? 10? 15? Determine the severity of the outcome by the difference in the results. You could do this with either opposed checks, DC, or even saving throws.
#22 Timborama Sep 05, 2014 6:04:42	Social rolls are difficult to use against PCs. You can't tell them how to feel or how to react. There are no Diplomacy Tables or Intimidate DCs for PC characters.   What you CAN do is present them with what is going on. Rolling a high intimidate, you tell the PCs "He means business!" or "That's no idle threat!" or even something as simple as "He seems very intimidating." What you DON'T say is "You're intimidated." That's for the roleplayer to decide, not (necessarily) the roll. The barbarian with strength 24 (but a low Wisdom) may laugh in the orcs face. The cleric may whisper a prayer. The cowardly rogue will back down. The existential wizard may do nothing. That's up to the individual. Perhaps if the intimadate roll is low, something goofy happens, which may effect the PCs (or not!). Others may laugh at him, but the Wizard may still be scared of that orc with 18 strength...   Same goes for things like Persuade (Diplomacy) or Deception (Bluff) checks. If PCs inquire and fail the Insight v Deception roll (or if he just rolls a good Persuade) you say things like, "He seems trustworthy" or "He seems serious and in need of your help" or "You not sure if he's lying" or even something as simple as "You have no reason to not believe him." Again, what you DON'T say is "You believe him." Because the PC very well may NOT believe him. His gut may be telling him something is up with that smiling elf cleric. Unfounded? Sure, but that's up to the PC. Maybe the Fighter is racist to elves. Maybe a Tiefling has trust issues. A single roll can't fix that.   So, again, present what the rolls mean without telling them how to feel about a situation. The DM is in control of many aspects of this game, but how a character feels is up to the character.