Our rogue is kinda rubbing the party the wrong way and, a few sessions ago, rolled to intimidate another party member. He rolled quite high and The other player was basically forced to be intimitaded, even if that was out of character for him. Something tells me that this kind of stuff Falls down on the roleplaying side of things and basically party members can't intimidate each other because they are working together. The Rogue did try to intimidate my Pc as well but I basically told him: "She doesn't take you seriously, you can't scare her". Would this be the right choice? Is there some other way to Rule this?
Remember that high persuasion/intimidation rolls do not mean a player gets their way automatically. My preference in these situations is to do something like this:
Rogue: (rolls a 19 on an intimidation check) I draw my blade threateningly as I demand (other PC) to (do a thing)”
DM (to PC targeted by the check): “your friend looks like he means business and is willing to harm you if you don’t comply, you’ve never seen him look so angry, how do you respond?”
Other PC: (responds)
this way, the success of the check is only determining how successful the rogue is at looking intimidating, and how seriously the PC should take the threat, by not how the PC is forced to respond
you could also have the other PC roll a WIS save against the rogues check to see how well they stand up to the threat, but I like to make sure the opportunity for the targeted PC to respond (fight, flight, negotiate, refuse, acquiesce, etc) in some way is always presented.
This is a really tricky thing. Social interaction between PCs and NPCs is difficult enough to adjudicate. To play this game we need a certain amount of consensus and putting in a mechanical rule that would force PC compliance might rub people the wrong way. I would say a rule like "because you are still worried about how angry Zagro the Aggro is about your behavior, you will have disadvantage on your skill checks until [x happens]" or something like that... but that would probably exacerbate the situation.
It's rare that I play a game that uses XP (most use milestones), but in the past DMs have used XP as way of rewarding behavior ("you get 100 bonus xp for RP..). But that can be exploited and can cause friction among different players with different personality. Rules like that seem good on paper but reward the players who are themselves super social and/or who have very social character, e.g. Babbles the Bard get extra XP for talking to all the townsfolk, but Reticent the Ranger is overlooked, even though her character is a curt and battle-scarred gloomstalker who prefers to lurk in the shadows and be unobserved.
I agree with iconarising: Let the roll represent how intimidating the character appears, articulate this to the other player, but allow the other player to decide how his character responds to this. Some people would be intimidated into doing what the first player wanted, but some would flee, fight, or just refuse to budge on principal. Just because the first player has been very intimidating, doesn't mean he just straight up gets exactly what he wants.
Social skill checks don't have the ability to force a PC act/think/respond in any specific way, whether it's from an NPC or another PC. It's called roleplaying, not mind control.
If a PC wants to intimidate another PC (why would anyone think that's a "fun thing" for a group game..?), shoot your shot. Act it out, let the other player respond accordingly as they wish, and be ready to roll up a brand new character after the rest of your party kills you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The REALLY IMPORTANT thing to remember is that the player should only be rolling for a proficiency check when the DM asks them to do so.
As the DM you are totally at liberty to hand waive rolls if you believe that the outcome is a foregone conclusion, or if it is better decided through roleplay.
If a player character wants to intimidate another player character, then have them roleplay it. The character that is on the receiving end gets to roleplay their character as they choose.
If a player character wants to intimidate another player character, then have them roleplay it.
There is a danger here, though. The player may be about as intimidating as a mouse, even though their character should be extremely terrifying.
Flipside, sometimes a player can be very, very scary .... but they're playing a quiet little bookish nerd with a stammer and crippling social anxiety.
Also, not everyone is comfortable with the same level of roleplay. For some players, it might stop at "I draw my dagger and tell him to ____ as intimidatingly as I can".
For all of those reasons, the numbers on the character sheet should always, always, inform the GM and other players as to how effective a character is in social situations. The quiet churchmouse player, whose character has a +17 to Intimidate, should definitely be able to just say "I intimidate [target]", and be intimidating. Meanwhile, the ex-Marine D.I., no matter how Oscar-worthy her RP performance might be with scowls and growls and whatnot .... if her churchmouse halfling wizard has a -3 to Intimidate, she should not be very effective at actually intimidating anyone within the game.
If a player character wants to intimidate another player character, then have them roleplay it.
There is a danger here, though. The player may be about as intimidating as a mouse, even though their character should be extremely terrifying.
Flipside, sometimes a player can be very, very scary .... but they're playing a quiet little bookish nerd with a stammer and crippling social anxiety.
Also, not everyone is comfortable with the same level of roleplay. For some players, it might stop at "I draw my dagger and tell him to ____ as intimidatingly as I can".
For all of those reasons, the numbers on the character sheet should always, always, inform the GM and other players as to how effective a character is in social situations. The quiet churchmouse player, whose character has a +17 to Intimidate, should definitely be able to just say "I intimidate [target]", and be intimidating. Meanwhile, the ex-Marine D.I., no matter how Oscar-worthy her RP performance might be with scowls and growls and whatnot .... if her churchmouse halfling wizard has a -3 to Intimidate, she should not be very effective at actually intimidating anyone within the game.
Using dice rolls to inform their roleplaying? Yes. Dictate thoughts, feelings, or actions of a player character? No. Let the players decide how they will roleplay their characters. Feel free to be disappointed if a player doesn't conform to what you as a DM think they "ought" to do. Do not dictate to them, do not penalize what you consider poor roleplay in mechanical ways. Do not allow one player character to walk all over another player character just because they have high Social skills. That is Not Fun.
Start telling your players what their actions will be, and you are probably going to have them hand you their character sheets and say "Do have fun playing my character for me."
If one PC tries to intimidate another, dice rolls are irrelevant unless the player being intimidated asks for one because they can't decide exactly how their character would react and requests some random input. It is a role playing situation and it is up to the players to trust each other enough to role play it in character. It isn't even up to the DM to decide unless there is some extraneous factor that the players might be unaware of ... role playing characters is up to the players.
One character may be particularly good at persuasion or intimidation, the player can explain what they are trying to do with the persuasion or intimidation, mention that they are good at these skills but ultimately it is up the the player that is being persuaded or intimidated to decide exactly how their character would react.
In addition, once any character attempts to force another character to change their viewpoint or to take some action they are against, especially with intimidation or another forceful approach, then this has become a PVP situation. (If the table bans PVP then that should include intimidation or other ways of forcing another player to do what you want). Some characters when faced with intimidation will give in but will take some sort of significant revenge later, entirely in character, so intimidation is fundamentally a PVP action.
Finally, if there is a character in the party whose player decides that they would never find the actions of this particular character to be intimidating no matter what they do then that is what happens - the intimidation attempt automatically fails. In my opinion, role playing decisions and interactions between player characters are entirely up to the players.
If a player character wants to intimidate another player character, then have them roleplay it.
There is a danger here, though. The player may be about as intimidating as a mouse, even though their character should be extremely terrifying.
Flipside, sometimes a player can be very, very scary .... but they're playing a quiet little bookish nerd with a stammer and crippling social anxiety.
Also, not everyone is comfortable with the same level of roleplay. For some players, it might stop at "I draw my dagger and tell him to ____ as intimidatingly as I can".
For all of those reasons, the numbers on the character sheet should always, always, inform the GM and other players as to how effective a character is in social situations. The quiet churchmouse player, whose character has a +17 to Intimidate, should definitely be able to just say "I intimidate [target]", and be intimidating. Meanwhile, the ex-Marine D.I., no matter how Oscar-worthy her RP performance might be with scowls and growls and whatnot .... if her churchmouse halfling wizard has a -3 to Intimidate, she should not be very effective at actually intimidating anyone within the game.
Correct for NPCs. For PC interactions, the character with the +17 intimidation can mention that they are very intimidating. That their goal in trying to intimidate this other player character is X and they hope to get the player character to respond accordingly. However, players ROLE PLAY their characters. They decide how their character responds to another character being intimidating. It is incumbent on the player to honestly decide how their character will react but it is their decision. If they request a die roll to help inform their role playing decision that is fine but the player being intimidated is the one to request such a roll. In any other case, the player just decides, taking into account the situation, their character, and the other character's abilities and then decides whether they are intimidated or not and how their character will react.
The churchmouse player doesn't need to BE intimidating, just explain what they are trying to do and point out their skill but the decision of how the situation turns out and how the other character reacts is up to the player in my opinion :)
However, players ROLE PLAY their characters. They decide how their character responds to another character being intimidating. It is incumbent on the player to honestly decide how their character will react but it is their decision. If they request a die roll to help inform their role playing decision that is fine but the player being intimidated is the one to request such a roll.
I disagree, strongly.
Whether a character is or is not intimidating (or suave, or calm in the face of threats, or whatever else) should be a matter of character (in)ability, not player (in)ability.
Regardless of whether that interaction is with a PC or an NPC.
However, players ROLE PLAY their characters. They decide how their character responds to another character being intimidating. It is incumbent on the player to honestly decide how their character will react but it is their decision. If they request a die roll to help inform their role playing decision that is fine but the player being intimidated is the one to request such a roll.
I disagree, strongly.
Whether a character is or is not intimidating (or suave, or calm in the face of threats, or whatever else) should be a matter of character (in)ability, not player (in)ability.
Regardless of whether that interaction is with a PC or an NPC.
You have not come right out and said whether or not you allow dice rolls to dictate player actions.
There is a world of difference between saying "They are very intimidating, roleplay accordingly" and "You are intimidated, so you do as you are told." One is fine. The other is the worst sort of "railroading" and tends to get you nothing but resentment. Resentment between a player and the DM is bad enough. Resentment between two players at your table can completely ruin a game.
At least, this is my experience, over decades of DMing. That and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee. I've found it wise to very sparing in the use of spells that allow the DM to dictate the actions of a character too. Players really hate it. They are happier if their characters die.
However, players ROLE PLAY their characters. They decide how their character responds to another character being intimidating. It is incumbent on the player to honestly decide how their character will react but it is their decision. If they request a die roll to help inform their role playing decision that is fine but the player being intimidated is the one to request such a roll.
I disagree, strongly.
Whether a character is or is not intimidating (or suave, or calm in the face of threats, or whatever else) should be a matter of character (in)ability, not player (in)ability.
Regardless of whether that interaction is with a PC or an NPC.
My comment said NOTHING about player ability. Player ability is irrelevant. The character has the skills, the player CAN state the objective they want to achieve by intimidating another character, they don't actually have to try to intimidate or persuade.
BUT it is the decision of the character that is being intimidated or persuaded how they will respond to another character attempting it. It isn't up to a die roll OR the player abilities.
An NPC doesn't have free will so their reactions or the success/failure of a skill are usually determined by a die roll. However, for a PC, the player DECIDES how their character will appropriately respond to intimidation or persuasion taking into account how intimidating or persuasive the other CHARACTER'S skills (not player's) might be. Players around the table have to trust that the other players WILL role play their characters appropriately so if they decide their character would be intimidated then they role play that and if they decide that their character would not be intimidated then they respond accordingly.
In your games would you allow a bard with +17 to persuasion to completely control the actions of another player character simply because they can always win a persuasion check?
"Please bring me my boots" persuasion check
"Can you get me a beer?" persuasion check
"Oh be a good chap and open the door for me" persuasion check
"Can you clean my clothes they are a bit dirty" persuasion check
"Fire your bow at the big bouncer type, he insulted me" persuasion check
A +17 on a bard or rogue with reliable talent is going to succeed most of the time. I NEVER allow inter party resolution of role playing/social skill checks by dice roll unless the targeted character requests the die roll to help them make up their mind. It isn't fair to the PC being targeted.
In your games would you allow a bard with +17 to persuasion to completely control the actions of another player character simply because they can always win a persuasion check?
Of course not.
But then, they wouldn't completely control the actions of NPCs with their persuasion checks, either. Not even if their dice were magic and they alwas rolled 20s every time.
To answer to OP, rolls never work against another player. That’s the beginning of a PvP mindset that ends with the rogue picking the fighter’s pocket or the wizard dropping a fireball on top of the melee characters.
The characters are on the same team, they should not be trying to coerce each other.
About the only exception I could think of is if a player is unsure what their character would do, and wants to leave it to the dice, usually making a wisdom or charisma save type thing. But in that case it’s still a save, it’s the player rolling to determine what their character will do, not rolling to determine what a different character will do.
As a DM I'd put PCs using intimidation on each as at a similar level to drawing swords or hitting each other with spells. In my experience you want to avoid it with most groups but with a mature bunch of players it can add a lot to the game.
You have two competing things here as a DM: You want your players to keep agency over their characters BUT you want to encourage the same players to respond in character if coerced. The best way I've found doing this is to add a new character trait to the affected character, something like "Afraid of <intimidating character>." This gives the intimidated character's player a choice. If they act afraid of the character by doing what they want OR avoiding them where possible they get inspiration. If they don't they get nothing. To discourage players wheeling out the intimidate hammer too often you can say if the if the intimidating character fails the check the other player is allowed to describe how they feel from the failed attempt and add that as a personality trait to their character.
In your games would you allow a bard with +17 to persuasion to completely control the actions of another player character simply because they can always win a persuasion check?
Of course not.
But then, they wouldn't completely control the actions of NPCs with their persuasion checks, either. Not even if their dice were magic and they alwas rolled 20s every time.
I agree since in that case the DM decides whether persuasion or intimidation is even possible for an NPC. The DM decides whether a die roll is required for affecting an NPC.
However, for a PC, it is the PC who decides if a die roll is required. They decide whether the persuasion or intimidation is even possible because it is a role playing game.
At least that is how I play it, perhaps you allow your players to force each other to do things via skill checks and remove the role playing aspect but others play differently.
This is the second time you've suggested that .... despite being told, explicitly and clearly, that it is not so.
The player does not get to decide if they are intimidated or not - the dice do.
The player does get to decide how they react to being intimidated. Just like in real life: some people, if you try to threaten or intimidate them, will step right back up in your face ready for a fight. Others will decide they like your chutzpah. Yet others will be struck by fear. That is the choice of the player on the receiving end: "how does MY character respond to intimidation?"
NOT whether they were intimidated at all, to begin with. That is literally why the game has a skill for it, and rules for determining success by rolling dice.
This is the second time you've suggested that .... despite being told, explicitly and clearly, that it is not so.
The player does not get to decide if they are intimidated or not - the dice do.
The player does get to decide how they react to being intimidated. Just like in real life: some people, if you try to threaten or intimidate them, will step right back up in your face ready for a fight. Others will decide they like your chutzpah. Yet others will be struck by fear. That is the choice of the player on the receiving end: "how does MY character respond to intimidation?"
NOT whether they were intimidated at all, to begin with. That is literally why the game has a skill for it, and rules for determining success by rolling dice.
"The player does get to decide how they react to being intimidated. Just like in real life: some people, if you try to threaten or intimidate them, will step right back up in your face ready for a fight. Others will decide they like your chutzpah. Yet others will be struck by fear. That is the choice of the player on the receiving end: "how does MY character respond to intimidation?"
The PLAYER gets to decide how they react to being intimidated.
The PLAYER decides "will step right back up in your face ready for a fight"
OR
The PLAYER decides "Others will decide they like your chutzpah"
OR
The PLAYER decides "Yet others will be struck by fear"
"That is the choice of the player on the receiving end: "how does MY character respond to intimidation?""
I don't get it ... YOU just repeated absolutely EVERYTHING I have been saying. I completely agree with every word - the PLAYER decides how their character reacts varying from not being intimidated at all (step back in your face ready for a fight) to showing fear, running away, or doing as asked. YOU specifically state "The PLAYER DECIDES" ... which is EXACTLY what I have been saying. Making a dice roll make NO difference if the PLAYER decides how they react to being intimidated.
You say "The player does not get to decide if they are intimidated or not - the dice do." BUT the player can choose any range of response from being intimidated to not being intimidated at all, laughing it off or attacking or anything else. What is the point of a die roll if it makes no difference on how the player responds?
Clearly we are having a miscommunication issue since you just repeated everything I have been saying in terms of how the player can have the character react to being intimidated.
Honestly, If my players are using ability checks against each other, that is a sign to me that there is a greater problem then the characters not getting along. That is some player versus player conflict and player conflicts drag down the game.
Also, as it was said earlier, the players should never role for something unless the DM tells them to, So if the Dm doesn't want that sort of player option (which I don't) then I wont allow it. I would recommend not allowing those things in a game because it takes away player agency and if those sort of checks have in game mechanical implications, that devalues ability's and spells that do those things and if someone is using their spells and ability's to manipulate another players character without consent in ANYWAY that is a massive problem.
Our rogue is kinda rubbing the party the wrong way and, a few sessions ago, rolled to intimidate another party member. He rolled quite high and The other player was basically forced to be intimitaded, even if that was out of character for him. Something tells me that this kind of stuff Falls down on the roleplaying side of things and basically party members can't intimidate each other because they are working together. The Rogue did try to intimidate my Pc as well but I basically told him: "She doesn't take you seriously, you can't scare her". Would this be the right choice? Is there some other way to Rule this?
Thanks in advance, have a Great day.
Remember that high persuasion/intimidation rolls do not mean a player gets their way automatically. My preference in these situations is to do something like this:
Rogue: (rolls a 19 on an intimidation check) I draw my blade threateningly as I demand (other PC) to (do a thing)”
DM (to PC targeted by the check): “your friend looks like he means business and is willing to harm you if you don’t comply, you’ve never seen him look so angry, how do you respond?”
Other PC: (responds)
this way, the success of the check is only determining how successful the rogue is at looking intimidating, and how seriously the PC should take the threat, by not how the PC is forced to respond
you could also have the other PC roll a WIS save against the rogues check to see how well they stand up to the threat, but I like to make sure the opportunity for the targeted PC to respond (fight, flight, negotiate, refuse, acquiesce, etc) in some way is always presented.
This is a really tricky thing. Social interaction between PCs and NPCs is difficult enough to adjudicate. To play this game we need a certain amount of consensus and putting in a mechanical rule that would force PC compliance might rub people the wrong way. I would say a rule like "because you are still worried about how angry Zagro the Aggro is about your behavior, you will have disadvantage on your skill checks until [x happens]" or something like that... but that would probably exacerbate the situation.
It's rare that I play a game that uses XP (most use milestones), but in the past DMs have used XP as way of rewarding behavior ("you get 100 bonus xp for RP..). But that can be exploited and can cause friction among different players with different personality. Rules like that seem good on paper but reward the players who are themselves super social and/or who have very social character, e.g. Babbles the Bard get extra XP for talking to all the townsfolk, but Reticent the Ranger is overlooked, even though her character is a curt and battle-scarred gloomstalker who prefers to lurk in the shadows and be unobserved.
I agree with iconarising: Let the roll represent how intimidating the character appears, articulate this to the other player, but allow the other player to decide how his character responds to this. Some people would be intimidated into doing what the first player wanted, but some would flee, fight, or just refuse to budge on principal. Just because the first player has been very intimidating, doesn't mean he just straight up gets exactly what he wants.
Social skill checks don't have the ability to force a PC act/think/respond in any specific way, whether it's from an NPC or another PC. It's called roleplaying, not mind control.
If a PC wants to intimidate another PC (why would anyone think that's a "fun thing" for a group game..?), shoot your shot. Act it out, let the other player respond accordingly as they wish, and be ready to roll up a brand new character after the rest of your party kills you.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The REALLY IMPORTANT thing to remember is that the player should only be rolling for a proficiency check when the DM asks them to do so.
As the DM you are totally at liberty to hand waive rolls if you believe that the outcome is a foregone conclusion, or if it is better decided through roleplay.
If a player character wants to intimidate another player character, then have them roleplay it. The character that is on the receiving end gets to roleplay their character as they choose.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
There is a danger here, though. The player may be about as intimidating as a mouse, even though their character should be extremely terrifying.
Flipside, sometimes a player can be very, very scary .... but they're playing a quiet little bookish nerd with a stammer and crippling social anxiety.
Also, not everyone is comfortable with the same level of roleplay. For some players, it might stop at "I draw my dagger and tell him to ____ as intimidatingly as I can".
For all of those reasons, the numbers on the character sheet should always, always, inform the GM and other players as to how effective a character is in social situations. The quiet churchmouse player, whose character has a +17 to Intimidate, should definitely be able to just say "I intimidate [target]", and be intimidating. Meanwhile, the ex-Marine D.I., no matter how Oscar-worthy her RP performance might be with scowls and growls and whatnot .... if her churchmouse halfling wizard has a -3 to Intimidate, she should not be very effective at actually intimidating anyone within the game.
Using dice rolls to inform their roleplaying? Yes. Dictate thoughts, feelings, or actions of a player character? No. Let the players decide how they will roleplay their characters. Feel free to be disappointed if a player doesn't conform to what you as a DM think they "ought" to do. Do not dictate to them, do not penalize what you consider poor roleplay in mechanical ways. Do not allow one player character to walk all over another player character just because they have high Social skills. That is Not Fun.
Start telling your players what their actions will be, and you are probably going to have them hand you their character sheets and say "Do have fun playing my character for me."
To the Original Poster. You were right.
<Insert clever signature here>
If one PC tries to intimidate another, dice rolls are irrelevant unless the player being intimidated asks for one because they can't decide exactly how their character would react and requests some random input. It is a role playing situation and it is up to the players to trust each other enough to role play it in character. It isn't even up to the DM to decide unless there is some extraneous factor that the players might be unaware of ... role playing characters is up to the players.
One character may be particularly good at persuasion or intimidation, the player can explain what they are trying to do with the persuasion or intimidation, mention that they are good at these skills but ultimately it is up the the player that is being persuaded or intimidated to decide exactly how their character would react.
In addition, once any character attempts to force another character to change their viewpoint or to take some action they are against, especially with intimidation or another forceful approach, then this has become a PVP situation. (If the table bans PVP then that should include intimidation or other ways of forcing another player to do what you want). Some characters when faced with intimidation will give in but will take some sort of significant revenge later, entirely in character, so intimidation is fundamentally a PVP action.
Finally, if there is a character in the party whose player decides that they would never find the actions of this particular character to be intimidating no matter what they do then that is what happens - the intimidation attempt automatically fails. In my opinion, role playing decisions and interactions between player characters are entirely up to the players.
Correct for NPCs. For PC interactions, the character with the +17 intimidation can mention that they are very intimidating. That their goal in trying to intimidate this other player character is X and they hope to get the player character to respond accordingly. However, players ROLE PLAY their characters. They decide how their character responds to another character being intimidating. It is incumbent on the player to honestly decide how their character will react but it is their decision. If they request a die roll to help inform their role playing decision that is fine but the player being intimidated is the one to request such a roll. In any other case, the player just decides, taking into account the situation, their character, and the other character's abilities and then decides whether they are intimidated or not and how their character will react.
The churchmouse player doesn't need to BE intimidating, just explain what they are trying to do and point out their skill but the decision of how the situation turns out and how the other character reacts is up to the player in my opinion :)
I disagree, strongly.
Whether a character is or is not intimidating (or suave, or calm in the face of threats, or whatever else) should be a matter of character (in)ability, not player (in)ability.
Regardless of whether that interaction is with a PC or an NPC.
You have not come right out and said whether or not you allow dice rolls to dictate player actions.
There is a world of difference between saying "They are very intimidating, roleplay accordingly" and "You are intimidated, so you do as you are told." One is fine. The other is the worst sort of "railroading" and tends to get you nothing but resentment. Resentment between a player and the DM is bad enough. Resentment between two players at your table can completely ruin a game.
At least, this is my experience, over decades of DMing. That and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee. I've found it wise to very sparing in the use of spells that allow the DM to dictate the actions of a character too. Players really hate it. They are happier if their characters die.
<Insert clever signature here>
My comment said NOTHING about player ability. Player ability is irrelevant. The character has the skills, the player CAN state the objective they want to achieve by intimidating another character, they don't actually have to try to intimidate or persuade.
BUT it is the decision of the character that is being intimidated or persuaded how they will respond to another character attempting it. It isn't up to a die roll OR the player abilities.
An NPC doesn't have free will so their reactions or the success/failure of a skill are usually determined by a die roll. However, for a PC, the player DECIDES how their character will appropriately respond to intimidation or persuasion taking into account how intimidating or persuasive the other CHARACTER'S skills (not player's) might be. Players around the table have to trust that the other players WILL role play their characters appropriately so if they decide their character would be intimidated then they role play that and if they decide that their character would not be intimidated then they respond accordingly.
In your games would you allow a bard with +17 to persuasion to completely control the actions of another player character simply because they can always win a persuasion check?
"Please bring me my boots" persuasion check
"Can you get me a beer?" persuasion check
"Oh be a good chap and open the door for me" persuasion check
"Can you clean my clothes they are a bit dirty" persuasion check
"Fire your bow at the big bouncer type, he insulted me" persuasion check
A +17 on a bard or rogue with reliable talent is going to succeed most of the time. I NEVER allow inter party resolution of role playing/social skill checks by dice roll unless the targeted character requests the die roll to help them make up their mind. It isn't fair to the PC being targeted.
Of course not.
But then, they wouldn't completely control the actions of NPCs with their persuasion checks, either. Not even if their dice were magic and they alwas rolled 20s every time.
To answer to OP, rolls never work against another player. That’s the beginning of a PvP mindset that ends with the rogue picking the fighter’s pocket or the wizard dropping a fireball on top of the melee characters.
The characters are on the same team, they should not be trying to coerce each other.
About the only exception I could think of is if a player is unsure what their character would do, and wants to leave it to the dice, usually making a wisdom or charisma save type thing. But in that case it’s still a save, it’s the player rolling to determine what their character will do, not rolling to determine what a different character will do.
As a DM I'd put PCs using intimidation on each as at a similar level to drawing swords or hitting each other with spells. In my experience you want to avoid it with most groups but with a mature bunch of players it can add a lot to the game.
You have two competing things here as a DM: You want your players to keep agency over their characters BUT you want to encourage the same players to respond in character if coerced. The best way I've found doing this is to add a new character trait to the affected character, something like "Afraid of <intimidating character>." This gives the intimidated character's player a choice. If they act afraid of the character by doing what they want OR avoiding them where possible they get inspiration. If they don't they get nothing. To discourage players wheeling out the intimidate hammer too often you can say if the if the intimidating character fails the check the other player is allowed to describe how they feel from the failed attempt and add that as a personality trait to their character.
I agree since in that case the DM decides whether persuasion or intimidation is even possible for an NPC. The DM decides whether a die roll is required for affecting an NPC.
However, for a PC, it is the PC who decides if a die roll is required. They decide whether the persuasion or intimidation is even possible because it is a role playing game.
At least that is how I play it, perhaps you allow your players to force each other to do things via skill checks and remove the role playing aspect but others play differently.
This is the second time you've suggested that .... despite being told, explicitly and clearly, that it is not so.
The player does not get to decide if they are intimidated or not - the dice do.
The player does get to decide how they react to being intimidated. Just like in real life: some people, if you try to threaten or intimidate them, will step right back up in your face ready for a fight. Others will decide they like your chutzpah. Yet others will be struck by fear. That is the choice of the player on the receiving end: "how does MY character respond to intimidation?"
NOT whether they were intimidated at all, to begin with. That is literally why the game has a skill for it, and rules for determining success by rolling dice.
"The player does get to decide how they react to being intimidated. Just like in real life: some people, if you try to threaten or intimidate them, will step right back up in your face ready for a fight. Others will decide they like your chutzpah. Yet others will be struck by fear. That is the choice of the player on the receiving end: "how does MY character respond to intimidation?"
The PLAYER gets to decide how they react to being intimidated.
The PLAYER decides "will step right back up in your face ready for a fight"
OR
The PLAYER decides "Others will decide they like your chutzpah"
OR
The PLAYER decides "Yet others will be struck by fear"
"That is the choice of the player on the receiving end: "how does MY character respond to intimidation?""
I don't get it ... YOU just repeated absolutely EVERYTHING I have been saying. I completely agree with every word - the PLAYER decides how their character reacts varying from not being intimidated at all (step back in your face ready for a fight) to showing fear, running away, or doing as asked. YOU specifically state "The PLAYER DECIDES" ... which is EXACTLY what I have been saying. Making a dice roll make NO difference if the PLAYER decides how they react to being intimidated.
You say "The player does not get to decide if they are intimidated or not - the dice do." BUT the player can choose any range of response from being intimidated to not being intimidated at all, laughing it off or attacking or anything else. What is the point of a die roll if it makes no difference on how the player responds?
Clearly we are having a miscommunication issue since you just repeated everything I have been saying in terms of how the player can have the character react to being intimidated.
Honestly, If my players are using ability checks against each other, that is a sign to me that there is a greater problem then the characters not getting along. That is some player versus player conflict and player conflicts drag down the game.
Also, as it was said earlier, the players should never role for something unless the DM tells them to, So if the Dm doesn't want that sort of player option (which I don't) then I wont allow it. I would recommend not allowing those things in a game because it takes away player agency and if those sort of checks have in game mechanical implications, that devalues ability's and spells that do those things and if someone is using their spells and ability's to manipulate another players character without consent in ANYWAY that is a massive problem.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."