If your pc had an ability that gave the opponent the frightened condition, then rolled intimidation on them, would they have advantage, or do the rules not say anything about it?
The rules don't say anything about that. Ironically, if they were Charmed they would be more susceptible to Intimidation, but Fear doesn't directly interact with Intimidation checks.
If your pc had an ability that gave the opponent the frightened condition, then rolled intimidation on them, would they have advantage, or do the rules not say anything about it?
Usually the Intimidation check would be a contested one and the Frightened condition imposes disadvantage. So I'm not sure how much more you are expecting tbh.
You could argue you have nothing to gain by intimidating a frightened target. Like throwing a torch at the sun.
Information. In an interrogation setting, frightened doesn't make them feel obligated to tell you anything in and of itself.
Neither does intimidation, neccesarily.
If you read the skill Intimidation it pretty clearly suggests that it is the skill that would be used for interrogations, unless "Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner" doesn't sound like a good match to you.
As was said, throwing a Torch at the Sun. It does have an effect. The Torch gets incinerated. The Sun itself probably doesn't get affected much.
The torch was intimidation in that scenario, and the sun was the frightened condition. Saying the torch has no effect on the sun is agreeing that intimidation has no effect on frightened.
Would have been better to deny the analogy completely than try to make it fit your argument.
You could most certainly use Intimidation on your Frightened target. If you want to get them to lie to you so you will stop asking questions.
Based on that theory, intimidation is always useless for interrogation, despite being used as an example of a use of intimidation.
Not necessarily. There is a difference between intimidation and terror. You can make them scared enough to give you information without making them so scared they tell you what they think you want to hear. Continuing the fire metaphor, that is like saying a torch is useless because it might burn down the building your in.
That said, there is a reason why torture is not a good means of interrogation. And for that matter interrogation is not a good means of acquiring information.
I think we're getting pretty far into like... real world logic. I think the main question is whether or not the Frightened condition, which is a condition in D&D 5e in the same way that Poisoned, Charmed, or Prone is a condition. Within the core ruleset, nothing about the Frightened condition also infers any sort of debuff in regards to also being Intimidated.
That said, the game is designed in a way that a DM uses their best judgment on how all the parts of the game interact. Just as a DM might determine that someone has advantage on an Intimidation check if they just killed all of a bandit's allies... nothing in the rules say specifically that leaving one bandit alive gives advantage on intimidation checks against them, but it makes sense and a good DM will take those kind of details into account.
I, personally, wouldn't give a player Advantage on an intimidation check against a frightened opponent, but I would drastically reduce the DC, rather than make it a contested check.
If your pc had an ability that gave the opponent the frightened condition, then rolled intimidation on them, would they have advantage, or do the rules not say anything about it?
Usually the Intimidation check would be a contested one and the Frightened condition imposes disadvantage. So I'm not sure how much more you are expecting tbh.
Credit where credit is due, please read Thezzaruz's post. The OP's question was answered. No, there is no Advantage to the Intimidation roll. There is Disadvantage on the part of the frightened creature for the contested check.
I think we're getting pretty far into like... real world logic. I think the main question is whether or not the Frightened condition, which is a condition in D&D 5e in the same way that Poisoned, Charmed, or Prone is a condition. Within the core ruleset, nothing about the Frightened condition also infers any sort of debuff in regards to also being Intimidated.
That said, the game is designed in a way that a DM uses their best judgment on how all the parts of the game interact. Just as a DM might determine that someone has advantage on an Intimidation check if they just killed all of a bandit's allies... nothing in the rules say specifically that leaving one bandit alive gives advantage on intimidation checks against them, but it makes sense and a good DM will take those kind of details into account.
I, personally, wouldn't give a player Advantage on an intimidation check against a frightened opponent, but I would drastically reduce the DC, rather than make it a contested check.
Just tuning in to echo this. Generally, I don't make an Intimidation check a contested check, I make it a check against a DC. The DC is set by the DM. And I'd definitely take the Frightened condition into account when setting this DC.
RAW there is no interaction between Intimidation checks and the Frightened condition, except for the disadvantage imposed on the skill checks of a frightened creature (which matters in a contested check such as between intimidation/insight).
I think we're getting pretty far into like... real world logic. I think the main question is whether or not the Frightened condition, which is a condition in D&D 5e in the same way that Poisoned, Charmed, or Prone is a condition. Within the core ruleset, nothing about the Frightened condition also infers any sort of debuff in regards to also being Intimidated.
That said, the game is designed in a way that a DM uses their best judgment on how all the parts of the game interact. Just as a DM might determine that someone has advantage on an Intimidation check if they just killed all of a bandit's allies... nothing in the rules say specifically that leaving one bandit alive gives advantage on intimidation checks against them, but it makes sense and a good DM will take those kind of details into account.
I, personally, wouldn't give a player Advantage on an intimidation check against a frightened opponent, but I would drastically reduce the DC, rather than make it a contested check.
Just tuning in to echo this. Generally, I don't make an Intimidation check a contested check, I make it a check against a DC. The DC is set by the DM. And I'd definitely take the Frightened condition into account when setting this DC.
RAW there is no interaction between Intimidation checks and the Frightened condition, except for how the disadvantage imposed on the skill checks of a frightened creature (which matters in a contested check such as between intimidation/insight).
Good example. How would insight resist intimidation? Insight might actually reveal that the person is earnest in their threats, making the intimidation easier.
As you say, it works as a contested check in the case of understanding whether the threats are earnest or not. However it might as well have called for a Deception/Insight check.
Personally, and as I stated in my post, I don't use Intimidation as a contested check (unless it is the player being intimidated). If you specifically use deception to threaten, then maybe it'll be the player's choice of Deception or Intimidation against Insight. But generally it wouldn't be a contested check if the PC holds his blood soaked blade to his opponent's throat (the npc wouldn't go "hmmm... let's try to guess his intentions..."). That's reserved for the PCs (heroes/protagonists). If there was something called a Will check, then I'd make an Intimidation vs Will check, but seeing as there isn't Intimidation vs DC is as close as it gets.
There are several ways to run the Intimidation, and the book supports them all really. As a DM you call for a contest as you see fit, you use the skills that you believe apply, you may accept suggestions of the group. You can run a skill check against a DC. It's all good.
I use contests when two creatures are actively trying to oppose each other, just as the book states under Contests. If a goblin prisoner was being Intimidated, I might just call a DC of 12. If it was a Hobgoblin, it would be a contest as they are known for courage and loyalty. If you were trying to decipher an ancient tome, you would roll a skill against a DC. If the book was magic and actively trying to confound you, it's a contest.
As you say, it works as a contested check in the case of understanding whether the threats are earnest or not. However it might as well have called for a Deception/Insight check.
Personally, and as I stated in my post, I don't use Intimidation as a contested check (unless it is the player being intimidated). If you specifically use deception to threaten, then maybe it'll be the player's choice of Deception or Intimidation against Insight. But generally it wouldn't be a contested check if the PC holds his blood soaked blade to his opponent's throat (the npc wouldn't go "hmmm... let's try to guess his intentions..."). That's reserved for the PCs (heroes/protagonists). If there was something called a Will check, then I'd make an Intimidation vs Will check, but seeing as there isn't Intimidation vs DC is as close as it gets.
But how serious they are is independent of how effectively they are conveying that. If the person trying to intimidate is serious in their threats, the opponent making a successful insight check might be complementary to the intimidation check rather than contesting it.
Deception vs insight sure, but persuasion or intimidation vs insight is a lot less clear.
To make an example of your own example (of a successful Insight check by your opponent being complimentary to your Intimidation check):
You're saying that PC who is earnest in his threat and rolls a 10, would have greater success in his intimidation if his opponent rolls a 15 Insight check (and wins the contested check).
Following this logic, a PC that is earnest in his threats and rolls a 15 Intimidation check against a 10 Insight check might be misunderstood and thus have less success in his Intimidation.
I think this kind of rule adjudication could quickly become a mess. But if it works for your table then that's all that matters.
For the Intimidation check that an enemy resists, I would use Deception. The skill pretty much says you can use it to withhold information, lie, etc. Deception
As you say, it works as a contested check in the case of understanding whether the threats are earnest or not. However it might as well have called for a Deception/Insight check.
Personally, and as I stated in my post, I don't use Intimidation as a contested check (unless it is the player being intimidated). If you specifically use deception to threaten, then maybe it'll be the player's choice of Deception or Intimidation against Insight. But generally it wouldn't be a contested check if the PC holds his blood soaked blade to his opponent's throat (the npc wouldn't go "hmmm... let's try to guess his intentions..."). That's reserved for the PCs (heroes/protagonists). If there was something called a Will check, then I'd make an Intimidation vs Will check, but seeing as there isn't Intimidation vs DC is as close as it gets.
But how serious they are is independent of how effectively they are conveying that. If the person trying to intimidate is serious in their threats, the opponent making a successful insight check might be complementary to the intimidation check rather than contesting it.
Deception vs insight sure, but persuasion or intimidation vs insight is a lot less clear.
To make an example of your own example (of a successful Insight check by your opponent being complimentary to your Intimidation check):
You're saying that PC who is earnest in his threat and rolls a 10, would have greater success in his intimidation if his opponent rolls a 15 Insight check (and wins the contested check).
Following this logic, a PC that is earnest in his threats and rolls a 15 Intimidation check against a 10 Insight check might be misunderstood and thus have less success in his Intimidation.
I think this kind of rule adjudication could quickly become a mess. But if it works for your table then that's all that matters.
Well you are using the term 'against' though. It would not be 'against.' Insight is against a DC and only contested if the other party is actively trying to deceive. If the insight check is successful, it might give either advantage to the intimidation check or lower the DC of the intimidation check. If middling, it does nothing. The other party cannot tell how serious on an emotional level that the intimidator is in their threats. Now a crit fail on the insight check might indeed actually be beneficial to the would be intimidation victim.
I'm not really sure what you are talking about anymore. A contested check that is not a contested check? I see you're now talking about Insight vs DC. That is not a contest. Or are you trying to say that Intimidation checks are usually matched against another skill in a skill check contest?
There are several ways to run the Intimidation, and the book supports them all really. As a DM you call for a contest as you see fit, you use the skills that you believe apply, you may accept suggestions of the group. You can run a skill check against a DC. It's all good.
I use contests when two creatures are actively trying to oppose each other, just as the book states under Contests. If a goblin prisoner was being Intimidated, I might just call a DC of 12. If it was a Hobgoblin, it would be a contest as they are known for courage and loyalty. If you were trying to decipher an ancient tome, you would roll a skill against a DC. If the book was magic and actively trying to confound you, it's a contest.
What skill would the Hobgoblin use to contest the Intimidation?
You could argue you have nothing to gain by intimidating a frightened target. Like throwing a torch at the sun.
Information. In an interrogation setting, frightened doesn't make them feel obligated to tell you anything in and of itself.
Neither does intimidation, neccesarily.
Neither does knocking all opponents out necessarily mean winning the battle, however it sure gives you good odds.....
Nice non sequitur. Back on topic, basically all three interaction skills (persuasion, deception, intimitadtion) can be used to make people give you information.
You don't need to pick an ability for disadvantage to debuff a passive ability check. If you interpret Intimidation as an opposed ability check against some static DC set by the DM representing the target's normal passive check against this particular intimidation, disadvantage, such as from frightened, would reduce the DC by 5. That way you don't need to worry about your houserule causing NPCs to suddenly be harder or easier to intimidate than you intended because now intimidation resistance is tied to an ability you were setting without thinking about intimidation resistance.
That said, my personal homebrew is that Intimidate (Charisma) is resisted by Intimidate (Wisdom), and I use the difference between the checks divided by 5 to approximate how intimidated the target is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If your pc had an ability that gave the opponent the frightened condition, then rolled intimidation on them, would they have advantage, or do the rules not say anything about it?
The rules don't say anything about that. Ironically, if they were Charmed they would be more susceptible to Intimidation, but Fear doesn't directly interact with Intimidation checks.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
You could argue you have nothing to gain by intimidating a frightened target. Like throwing a torch at the sun.
Neither does intimidation, neccesarily.
Usually the Intimidation check would be a contested one and the Frightened condition imposes disadvantage. So I'm not sure how much more you are expecting tbh.
If you read the skill Intimidation it pretty clearly suggests that it is the skill that would be used for interrogations, unless "Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner" doesn't sound like a good match to you.
The torch was intimidation in that scenario, and the sun was the frightened condition. Saying the torch has no effect on the sun is agreeing that intimidation has no effect on frightened.
Would have been better to deny the analogy completely than try to make it fit your argument.
You could most certainly use Intimidation on your Frightened target. If you want to get them to lie to you so you will stop asking questions.
<Insert clever signature here>
Not necessarily. There is a difference between intimidation and terror. You can make them scared enough to give you information without making them so scared they tell you what they think you want to hear. Continuing the fire metaphor, that is like saying a torch is useless because it might burn down the building your in.
That said, there is a reason why torture is not a good means of interrogation. And for that matter interrogation is not a good means of acquiring information.
I think we're getting pretty far into like... real world logic. I think the main question is whether or not the Frightened condition, which is a condition in D&D 5e in the same way that Poisoned, Charmed, or Prone is a condition. Within the core ruleset, nothing about the Frightened condition also infers any sort of debuff in regards to also being Intimidated.
That said, the game is designed in a way that a DM uses their best judgment on how all the parts of the game interact. Just as a DM might determine that someone has advantage on an Intimidation check if they just killed all of a bandit's allies... nothing in the rules say specifically that leaving one bandit alive gives advantage on intimidation checks against them, but it makes sense and a good DM will take those kind of details into account.
I, personally, wouldn't give a player Advantage on an intimidation check against a frightened opponent, but I would drastically reduce the DC, rather than make it a contested check.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Credit where credit is due, please read Thezzaruz's post. The OP's question was answered. No, there is no Advantage to the Intimidation roll. There is Disadvantage on the part of the frightened creature for the contested check.
Just tuning in to echo this. Generally, I don't make an Intimidation check a contested check, I make it a check against a DC. The DC is set by the DM. And I'd definitely take the Frightened condition into account when setting this DC.
RAW there is no interaction between Intimidation checks and the Frightened condition, except for the disadvantage imposed on the skill checks of a frightened creature (which matters in a contested check such as between intimidation/insight).
As you say, it works as a contested check in the case of understanding whether the threats are earnest or not. However it might as well have called for a Deception/Insight check.
Personally, and as I stated in my post, I don't use Intimidation as a contested check (unless it is the player being intimidated). If you specifically use deception to threaten, then maybe it'll be the player's choice of Deception or Intimidation against Insight. But generally it wouldn't be a contested check if the PC holds his blood soaked blade to his opponent's throat (the npc wouldn't go "hmmm... let's try to guess his intentions..."). That's reserved for the PCs (heroes/protagonists). If there was something called a Will check, then I'd make an Intimidation vs Will check, but seeing as there isn't Intimidation vs DC is as close as it gets.
There are several ways to run the Intimidation, and the book supports them all really. As a DM you call for a contest as you see fit, you use the skills that you believe apply, you may accept suggestions of the group. You can run a skill check against a DC. It's all good.
I use contests when two creatures are actively trying to oppose each other, just as the book states under Contests. If a goblin prisoner was being Intimidated, I might just call a DC of 12. If it was a Hobgoblin, it would be a contest as they are known for courage and loyalty. If you were trying to decipher an ancient tome, you would roll a skill against a DC. If the book was magic and actively trying to confound you, it's a contest.
To make an example of your own example (of a successful Insight check by your opponent being complimentary to your Intimidation check):
You're saying that PC who is earnest in his threat and rolls a 10, would have greater success in his intimidation if his opponent rolls a 15 Insight check (and wins the contested check).
Following this logic, a PC that is earnest in his threats and rolls a 15 Intimidation check against a 10 Insight check might be misunderstood and thus have less success in his Intimidation.
I think this kind of rule adjudication could quickly become a mess. But if it works for your table then that's all that matters.
For the Intimidation check that an enemy resists, I would use Deception. The skill pretty much says you can use it to withhold information, lie, etc. Deception
I'm not really sure what you are talking about anymore. A contested check that is not a contested check? I see you're now talking about Insight vs DC. That is not a contest. Or are you trying to say that Intimidation checks are usually matched against another skill in a skill check contest?
What skill would the Hobgoblin use to contest the Intimidation?
Nice non sequitur. Back on topic, basically all three interaction skills (persuasion, deception, intimitadtion) can be used to make people give you information.
You don't need to pick an ability for disadvantage to debuff a passive ability check. If you interpret Intimidation as an opposed ability check against some static DC set by the DM representing the target's normal passive check against this particular intimidation, disadvantage, such as from frightened, would reduce the DC by 5. That way you don't need to worry about your houserule causing NPCs to suddenly be harder or easier to intimidate than you intended because now intimidation resistance is tied to an ability you were setting without thinking about intimidation resistance.
That said, my personal homebrew is that Intimidate (Charisma) is resisted by Intimidate (Wisdom), and I use the difference between the checks divided by 5 to approximate how intimidated the target is.