l5r 4e – Does the Jirozame Bushi school’s rank 2 technique Eyes of the Predator cause a loss of Honor due to using Intimidation?

Rank 2 of the (Shark Clan) Jirozame Bushi school’s rank 2 technique Eyes of the Predator states:

In the wild many animals are paralyzed when faced with a clearly
superior predator, and the Shark bring this attitude to the fight,
purging all emotion from their mind to establish superiority. Before
initiative is rolled (or before the Assessment roll in a iaijutsu
duel) you can make an Intimidation/Awareness roll, contested by your
opponent’s Honor/Willpower. If successful, you can add +5 to your
Initiative roll, or to your Focus roll in a iaijutsu duel.

Using Intimidation normally makes your character lose honor. Does using this rank still make me lose Honor?

l5r 4e – Shark Clan losing Honor due intimidation

Reading Rank 2 of the Jirozame Bushi Eyes Of the Predator

In the wild many animals are paralyzed when faced with a clearly
superior predator, and the Shark bring this attitude to the fight,
purging all emotion from their mind to establish superiority. Before
initiative is rolled (or before the Assessment roll in a iaijutsu
duel) you can make an Intimidation/Awareness roll, contested by your
opponent’s Honor/Willpower. If successful, you can add +5 to your
Initiative roll, or to your Focus roll in a iaijutsu duel.

Using Intimidation makes your character to lose honor. Does using this rank still make me lose Honor?

dnd 5e – Would using the Thaumaturgy cantrip give an advantage in an Intimidation control?

I've seen this on the table: but it's not a Easy button

The rules to give circumstantial advantage are an excellent way to reward the intelligence, innovation and teamwork of players while trying to establish situations where the advantage would do accrue. I had an advantage for my cleric for doing something like that with Thaumaturgy, in our first campaign. Learning from that, I have looked for innovative uses of various skills to do the same.

The DM may also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or another and, as a result, grant advantage or impose disadvantage. (Basic rules, p. 60)

Using Thaumaturgy in that way, if the player or players set it up, would be a way to incorporate that higher level concept, applying circumstantial advantage / disadvantage, into mechanical results in the game. The key is to listen to the players as they respond to the basic flow of the game.

  1. The DM describes the environment.
  2. Players describe what they want to do.
  3. The DM tells the results of the actions of the adventurers.

    Establishing a climate at the table where finding intelligent solutions for difficult situations is encouraged, and sometimes mechanically rewarded, is a place where this edition shines. But it takes more than looking at an If / Then rule statement: context and configuration, such as a good joke and its hit line, are the key to making the most of every opportunity.

dnd 5e: Would using thaumaturgy give intimidation an advantage?

Basically, just what the question says.

Let's say I used thaumaturgy to create a rumbling voice, shake the ground and start a thundering noise while suggesting someone do something in an attempt to intimidate them. Would that impose an advantage on bullying? Maybe not so much to roll twice, but a kind of bonus?

This also assumes that they are not creatures who understand magic to the point of knowing what is happening.

pathfinder 1e – What are the advantages of using intimidation over persuasion?

What are the advantages of using intimidation over persuasion?

There are some quite obvious disadvantages to bullying. The main one is that if it fails, you can end up with a lot of city guards in the queue. What about the advantages? Because from what I, in my limited knowledge, understand, bullying is only a weaker persuasion. Most likely, I'm very wrong about that, that's why I asked. Let's go simply for RAW and RAI, for the sake of consistency.

dnd 5e – How to use the Passive Group Intimidation score to determine the attitude of the NPC / weak monsters?

I do not believe that such verification is strictly necessary to be honest with you. If the DM feels that your group seems intimidating, it will simply cause the NPCs to respond accordingly.

The central point of passive checks is that it allows characters (and NPCs!) To rebound a large amount of disputed CDs and verifications in the surrounding area without having to constantly ask players to throw a d20. Passive perception works well because many threats (hidden enemies, traps, pickpockets in a busy street) have control points against which their perception is automatically verifying (hence the passive part) and works VERY well for perception.

However, it does not work so well for bullying …

Bullying is different, because, unless, like DM, you have each and every one of the NPCs in, say, a busy market makes CDs or saves to determine if they are intimidated or not (which would be foolish and unnecessary !). Well, simply narrate if they are intimidated or not without bothering about checks.

Another thing I do not like about this idea is that it takes control away from the players. If a player wants to be intimidating that is his prerogative. By using passive intimidation, you are basically doing it to ALWAYS be intimidating, even if at present want to try not to be.

dnd 5e – Establish DC for bullying and fear should be the equivalent of bewitched intimidation?

According to the DMG:

a successful charisma check could be required to convince a friend
Creature to take that risk. A successful Charisma test is necessary.
when the adventurers try to persuade an indifferent creature to do
something, and the adventurers need to succeed in one or more
challenge the charisma tests to convince a hostile creature to do
anything in his name

(See page 244 of the DMG, these are parts of each of the entries about friendly, indifferent and hostile creatures). According to these, given that bullying is a charisma check, the PNC could probably use a charisma or a DC wisdom.

Another option is simply to choose a target DC. (Very easy = DC 5, Easy = DC 10, Medium = DC 15, Difficult = DC 20, Very hard = DC 25, Almost impossible = DC 30, see DMG 238).

Another way to do this is to simply determine how well they succeed based on their charisma role, here is an example (see page 245 DMG)

Conversation reaction

Reaction of DC friendly creature

0 The creature does what is asked of it without taking risks or
making sacrifices

10 The creature accepts a lower risk or sacrifice to make.
As asked

20 The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice for
do what they ask you

Reaction of DC's indifferent creature

0 The creature does not offer lp but does not hurt.

10 The creature does what it needs as long as there are no risks or
The sacrifices are involved.

20 The creature accepts a lower risk or sacrifice to make.
As asked

Reaction of the DC hostile creature

0 The creature is opposed to the actions of the adventurers and
I could take risks to do it.

10The creature does not offer help but does not hurt.

20 The creature does what it is asked for as long as there are no risks or
The sacrifices are involved.

I hope these can be useful!