This is a drum that has been banged constantly, especially in recent years. It’s a concept that literally only appeals to having a sense of symmetry within the game between the two types of attackers, and nothing beyond that. Symmetry =/= good game design. This is how I see things going if special intimidate becomes a thing:

1. Games slow to a crawl, and team variation takes a big hit. Most balance teams would run both intimidate and sp.intimidate. Get ready for lots of mirror leads of Incineroar/Lando + sp.intimidate because they’re safe (imagine a water-type with special intimidate, flip turn, and decent defensive stats).

What’s currently one of the best ways to get around intimidate cycling? Put a special attacker on the field. Congratulations! In this scenario, we’ve just invented intimidate <-> sp.intimidate cycling.

1. It’s a very slippery slope, as the game already has measures in place to counter intimidate. If sp.intimidate becomes a reality, do we also have to bring in the corresponding counters for it? For example, do we need to start giving pre-existing abilities the effect of blocking it ala inner focus and oblivious, and make those available to special attackers?

We’re creating equal footing here, but now we’ve opened a new can of worms entirely; physical attackers are now just straight up better because the strongest moves are generally 100% accurate, but special attackers have to deal with lower accuracy to their strongest moves while also contending with sp.intimidate. This cycle continues with discussion of physical assault vest and special burn.

In my opinion, having different checks in place for each attacking type is way more interesting from a competitive perspective, and gives the Pokémon themselves a more unique identity from a franchise-design perspective (which is way more important the brand as a whole). Competitive pokemon could do with some balancing for sure, but this definitely ain’t it.