So, this question has been bugging me for a while... should making a PC (like my hypothetical Lawful Evil Red Dragonborn Wizard pyromancer build that I'm hoping to play one day being an example, this but can be any race or class really) the party leader automatically mean he or she should be required to take the Inspiring Leader feat? Like, say, for example, even if I originally wanted my build to have the Skilled, Prodigy, and War Wizard feats, does that mean I should give up one of those planned feats to make room for Inspiring Leader?
To help answer this question, I provided a poll, but I would really appreciate it if you would leave a post giving a detailed explanation for your answer and the reasoning behind it.
No, definitely not. Inspiring Leader is for those with high CHA who want to auto-buff their allies often. Take the feats you want for your character, and have fun!
I might suggest that if a character is acting in a leadership role and the player is playing the role very well, you as the DM might consider giving that player the feat, or offering it for half price (letting them boost a single stat as well)
No, definitely not. Inspiring Leader is for those with high CHA who want to auto-buff their allies often. Take the feats you want for your character, and have fun!
Take the feats you want and have fun you say...
I said depends on the campaign. You don't have to be an inspiring leader to be a leader. Not all leaders are good leaders. Not all leaders are inspiring. But if you think it'd be more fun to do so. Then do it.
D&D is about being creative and testing the limits of your imagination. not always following someone elses' cookie cutter design on how to "optimize" your character or the damage you do. Have fun with what you do.
Forcing a player to take a feat because they adapted to the leadership role of the party is silly. The question asked about requiring a feat-- not taking it of your free will because you are the party leader.
I tend to fall into the leader role of most parties, just because I'm less shy about speaking up at the start of the game compared to many of the people I end up playing with. If the DM told me "Alright, level 4-- So, since you're the leader you MUST take the Inspiring Leader feat now" I'd likely just quit (assuming the DM didn't take my 'no, I'd rather not' as an answer, of course). Not to say I haven't taken it-- I took it for my shadow sorc in a game, because it suited the character's method of leadership. She was an inspiring speaker, that was absolutely a trait of hers, so it made perfect sense. But to be told that it is a requirement that I use my ASI to take a feat of the DM's choice is just bad DMing. My gruff Ranger and my awkward Druid are not inspiring leaders.
If you just want to hand out the feat to whoever does that, sure, sounds like an interesting idea. If that's the question I might then ask you what you're giving to the party cartographer, the party mule, the party banker-- To represent the roles they have taken on in the party... But the question was should it be a requirement and it most certainly should not. I was answering the question as stated, my dude. Change the goalposts all you want, but my answer is accurate to my feelings about the question posed ("Should the Inspiring Leader Feat be a Requirement for Party Leaders?"), not whatever additional questions people have added to the thread based on that question.
No, definitely not. Inspiring Leader is for those with high CHA who want to auto-buff their allies often. Take the feats you want for your character, and have fun!
Take the feats you want and have fun you say...
I said depends on the campaign. You don't have to be an inspiring leader to be a leader. Not all leaders are good leaders. Not all leaders are inspiring. But if you think it'd be more fun to do so. Then do it.
D&D is about being creative and testing the limits of your imagination. not always following someone elses' cookie cutter design on how to "optimize" your character or the damage you do. Have fun with what you do.
Forcing a player to take a feat because they adapted to the leadership role of the party is silly. The question asked about requiring a feat-- not taking it of your free will because you are the party leader.
I tend to fall into the leader role of most parties, just because I'm less shy about speaking up at the start of the game compared to many of the people I end up playing with. If the DM told me "Alright, level 4-- So, since you're the leader you MUST take the Inspiring Leader feat now" I'd likely just quit (assuming the DM didn't take my 'no, I'd rather not' as an answer, of course). Not to say I haven't taken it-- I took it for my shadow sorc in a game, because it suited the character's method of leadership. She was an inspiring speaker, that was absolutely a trait of hers, so it made perfect sense. But to be told that it is a requirement that I use my ASI to take a feat of the DM's choice is just bad DMing. My gruff Ranger and my awkward Druid are not inspiring leaders.
If you just want to hand out the feat to whoever does that, sure, sounds like an interesting idea. If that's the question I might then ask you what you're giving to the party cartographer, the party mule, the party banker-- To represent the roles they have taken on in the party... But the question was should it be a requirement and it most certainly should not. I was answering the question as stated, my dude. Change the goalposts all you want, but my answer is accurate to my feelings about the question posed ("Should the Inspiring Leader Feat be a Requirement for Party Leaders?"), not whatever additional questions people have added to the thread based on that question.
Okay. Let's uh... "change the goalposts" as you call it.
It's silly that a DM forces players to be HEROES or GOOD in their campaign.
It's silly that a DM forces players to GO QUESTING and not start a Microbrewery. etc etc etc etc etc
As I stated in my post. "depends on the campaign" as well as me stating "not all leaders are inspiring, not all leaders are even good, etc etc etc" D&D is about creativity. If something like this ruffles your feathers, what happens when the DM gets really creative and does things like. "You were sold into slavery overnight and lost all your eq. You didn't lock your door at the Inn, you didn't check to see if you were followed, you didn't set some kind of alarm to notify you if someone entered your room, and they chloroformed you."
Would you throw a hissy fit right away over this (my bet is YOU personally would), or, would you wait and see where it's going first? *most* DM's don't just throw things out there for Ss & Gs, but they have a reason for it, that ties into the grand scheme. As a player, would you rather force your ideal of a character on the DM, or interact with the world the DM creates how your character would?
DM: You must be an inspiring leader
you the player: I quit
Your PC: I commit suicide and die and am gone from this campaign over being a leader, the anxiety has gotten to me.
your thinking seems very black and white. As you also stated Inspiring leader is for characters with high Charisma.
Why only high? Can a player with low charisma not take it? Do you equate charisma only to social skills, and not to attractiveness? It comes down to how people RP and how CREATIVE people are.
Why do you think we roll 20 sided dice? its not for a simple "yes" or "no" black and white world.
EX: Inspiring Leader: Char also has 7 charisma. (picture this), getting an "inspiring" speech from your leader before the battle. Your leader looks like the kid from "the Mask" (the Cher movie, not Jim Carrey), and is stuttering along in his speech left and right.
Nope. guess that won't ever happen in your games, as ". Inspiring Leader is for those with high CHA who want to auto-buff their allies often" and can't possibly ever have any uses for RP moments like that.
I might suggest that if a character is acting in a leadership role and the player is playing the role very well, you as the DM might consider giving that player the feat, or offering it for half price (letting them boost a single stat as well)
But I would not require it.
MellieDM Notice this answer here. Which I agree with. Where he doesn't force Opinions like "Inspiring leader is for high charisma characters who want to auto-buff...".
TexasDevin says, he personally wouldn't require it, and that an alternative to forcing it on a char (which makes you quit) is to give the feat, or offer it for a half price. 2 different alternatives that still seem fun, and don't just paint the world black and white.
Do you see why you're a Hypocrite yet MellieDM for what you said and topping it off with your "have fun".
If a DM decides to make their players' limited mechanical choices about their characters for them, I do absolutely see that as poor DMing. The things that the players have control over, is their character. A DM controls everything else-- including setting requirements for the campaign. Such as-- Requiring the players all be good, because this is a good-based story. Or maybe the DM says, only magic-based classes, because that's what the story is about. Or maybe the DM says that you can't be a Warlock. That's just DMing. That is a DM creating a setting. Sure, those are limitations that change what I can pick mechanically, but I still have the opportunity to create a character that is mine.
However, if a DM tells the Fighter that they must choose the Archery fighting style, because that's what the DM wants the character to do, that is poor DMing.
If the DM tells the Wizard what cantrips they get, that is poor DMing.
If the DM tells the Bard at level 4 that they must take a +2 to Strength because they spent a lot of time climbing so far in the campaign, that's a poor DM.
If the DM tells the Wizard they must take the Lightly Armored feat because the DM thinks the Wizard should get armor, that's a poor DM.
If the DM tells someone they must make a specific mechanical choice about what that player's character wants, or would choose to take, that is a poor DM.
Like I said before-- If you want to give someone Inspiring Leader because you as a DM see that as what they are doing. Sure! Sounds fun. But to tell a player they MUST give up a mechanical choice in their character creation because YOU want them to take a specific feat is controlling and would make me uncomfortable.
In my mind, no D&D is better than bad D&D. If a DM told me I had to make my character to their mechanical specifications, it would no longer be my character. That DM would be better off writing a novel than DMing, as they do not wish for the players to have agency. A game of D&D is played between players and a DM, it is a game of collaboration. If the DM is forcing their players into mechanical decisions, well we have a word for that-- It's called railroading.
Since you seem to think I am against the DM doing anything the players 'don't like', here's some examples for you from the four campaigns I actively participate in, every week. Times when the DM did something that was either surprising and went against what I had intended, harmed my character mechanically, or times where I as a DM either placed limitations, or caused my players to face consequences of the things that they chose to do.
Campaign 1. I play a Firbolg Druid, the backstory which was worked on with the DM involves their circle being killed because of their cowardice. In what I wrote, everyone had died. The DM has us meet a small village of people, and there was a child in the village who was from my Druid circle. By your logic of the way my brain works, I would just quit, right? But oh, no, that's the strawman you have turned me into. The moment took me and the character by surprise, and we had an amazing roleplay moment between the NPC and my character, which changed the entire perspective and growth of the character's personality. She lied to the child's face about what happened, and as the story of the campaign progressed she was faced with other people's consequences of lies, and was forced to grow and change and tell the child honestly that her parents would never return, due to my character's actions. It was awesome, and that's why I love being a player-- So the DM can throw curveballs at you that make for an exciting story. Additionally, we were told to play Good or Neutral characters. Sounds fine to me.
Campaign 2. I play a Horizon Walker ranger. Early in the game through a DM's random tables I managed to luck out and roll the exact number to get a really cool item (the sun blade). The character (in RP) shifted the way she fought progressively over several battles until she mainly used the sun blade. The DM kept throwing bread crumbs that there was something odd about it, but my character is a woman of action, so she ignored the sneaking suspicion that something was wrong. Then, once I slayed one of every monster type, we had a long rest and in my sleep I had to fight a duplicate of myself, who was wielding the sun blade and had additional powers. It was an incredibly difficult battle, the DM didn't pull punches, and though I got close to winning, I lost. My character woke up aged, greying hair, aching body-- And I was told that I now had one automatic failed death save whenever I am knocked out. I am closer to death. And I was also told that I had a feeling it would happen again. This was also really cool. It lead to some funny RP moments with the Druid who is concerned about how elderly I am now; and some interesting opportunities for RP with the Cleric, and secret-keeping among the party. I love it, even if it means my character might die, because it's interesting.
Campaign 3. I'm the DM. The party is in a city, and the rogue got annoyed by the sorcerer and monk and decided to go off on her own. The druid later joined up with her, and they tried to solve a robbery in the town together. They learned of a tunnel leading to a thieves' guild, and were warned over and over and over again by someone they had charmed that it was dangerous, and that the charmed person didn't want them to get hurt. The rogue succeeded on a history check and recalled the thieves' guild of this city is large and nefarious. They chose to go into the tunnels anyways. They ended up falling into a trap and nearly dying to some rot grubs last session in the tunnels, and after they finished a short rest they OOC discussed the possibility of heading back. They decided firmly against it. They made a decision based on all the warnings they received IC, and in the end they wound up in a deadly situation against nearly 50 thieves, a battle that they knew they could only win if luck was on their side and they found a route to escape through. They made a deal instead, but if they had decided to fight, they could have died. All of the decisions they made were their's to make, I as the DM merely presented the situation, and then provided the consequences of the choices they made. I didn't tell them they had to go down into the tunnels, and I didn't tell them they couldn't go down into the tunnels. I didn't tell them they had to turn back after they were badly hurt, or that they should continue forward to explore more. I just presented to them the world, and they decided their own fate, and faced the consequences related to that.
Campaign 4. I'm the DM. The story of the campaign takes place at the birth of mortal magic, where magic users are seen as villains who stole their powers from the Gods, and are treated as slaves or merely killed. The campaign has a limitation: Everyone must play a class with access to magic, because the point of the story is that they are people with magic who have to survive in a world where they are hated and hunted.
So, unless you are very firmly decided that I must be a straw man who hates when a DM does anything, I hope that you can see now that there's a difference between a DM creating a story, and perhaps creating limitations to work within the campaign story the DM is carefully crafting, and making mechanical decisions on behalf of your players.
I love, as a player, facing IC consequences for my actions or inactions. I am totally chill with a DM creating limitations for their world. If a DM told me their world only had humans, elves, and dwarfs, I would play a human, elf or dwarf. If a DM told me that their world only has humans, elves, and dwarfs and MellieDM has to play an elf, and Player #2 has to play a dwarf and Player #3 has to play a human and no you can't change them or decide that instead Player #2 wants to play an elf and MellieDM wants to play a dwarf, because I the DM said that you have to play the character I intend you to play-- I would choose not to play. What's the point? I'm not there to act out the DM's fantasies. I'm there to have fun with friends and tell a story together.
No D&D is better than bad D&D, and bad D&D can occur when players and DMs want different things. If a DM wants to make all of my decisions for me, I would recommend they make a DMPC instead. If they want to say I have to pick between x limited options, or we have to be Good characters for the story, or we're all Clerics for the story, sounds great. But don't then tell me that I'm a good cleric and oh also I've picked which domains you all get, and I've chosen your cantrips for you, and at level 4 you have to pick this feat-- Because then I don't have a character. I have a tool that you are using, and I have no identity with that character. But if the DM said 'This is a good campaign and you're all clerics', I'd go with that. That sounds like a fun concept!
Same goes if I'm a DM. I've had campaigns where I have said only good or neutral characters, and someone comes up with an evil character. Sorry, but that's the limitation I placed, so you need to rethink the character. But I would never tell a player "Alright, so because you have done xyz, you have to choose this feat at level 4 instead of your ASI/or your own chosen feat". That's just being an overcontrolling person. The characters your players have is the one thing they truly control in the world. Let them control them. Let them decide who they are, or what they would choose when they get a mechanical decision from level up.
I might suggest that if a character is acting in a leadership role and the player is playing the role very well, you as the DM might consider giving that player the feat, or offering it for half price (letting them boost a single stat as well)
But I would not require it.
MellieDM Notice this answer here. Which I agree with. Where he doesn't force Opinions like "Inspiring leader is for high charisma characters who want to auto-buff...".
TexasDevin says, he personally wouldn't require it, and that an alternative to forcing it on a char (which makes you quit) is to give the feat, or offer it for a half price. 2 different alternatives that still seem fun, and don't just paint the world black and white.
Do you see why you're a Hypocrite yet MellieDM for what you said and topping it off with your "have fun".
Because both statements are true, EightPackKilla.
- TRUE: Here is the mechanical intent of the feat - TRUE: Choose what is fun for you. - OPINION: The answer to the question 'Should this be required': 'No'.
If you make a character with low CHA who is an inspiring leader and you as a player desire that feat to represent your RP choices, that is fun for you, and you should make that decision! However, a DM should not force that decision upon you, preventing you from taking what you want to have fun.
We can discuss mechanics day and night-- The only thing that matters are the end of the day is what the player wants to do, which is my point, EightPackKilla. The DM wanting a player to take a feat should not force a player to take a feat they do not find fun. The DM might suggest the feat, but the player should get to make the final decision of whether they take that feat, another, or take an ASI-- based on what they want for their character so that they can have fun.
“If a DM decides to make their players' limited mechanical choices about their characters for them, I do absolutely see that as poor DMing. The things that the players have control over, is their character. A DM controls everything else-- including setting requirements for the campaign. Such as-- Requiring the players all be good, because this is a good-based story. Or maybe the DM says, only magic-based classes, because that's what the story is about. Or maybe the DM says that you can't be a Warlock. That's just DMing. That is a DM creating a setting. Sure, those are limitations that change what I can pick mechanically, but I still have the opportunity to create a character that is mine. ”
Setting requirement: to be a party leader you must have Inspiring leader.
Setting requirement: to be a party leader you must have Inspiring leader.
Your argument. In 1 thesis or less.
I have to ask this, because I find this 'setting requirement' very confusing: What does "Party Leader" mean mechanically to you, EightPackKilla? If someone takes any actions that you would personally consider to be 'signs of leadership' and they didn't have to feat, would you disallow them that roleplayed decision?
In every game I've played or DMed, the party leader is just something that is implied based on whoever tends to speak up when the DM asks a question, or who prompts the other players to do something. It is someone that the party as a whole make a choice to listen to. If this is the case, how do you make the definition of what you can or cannot do in the game withoutthe Inspiring Leader feat?
Are you saying that no player may answer the DM, when they ask what the party is going to do-- Unless they have taken this feat?
If a player says: "Hey, Rogue, check this door for traps!" Do you penalize them for not having the party leader feat?
If the party as a whole refer to a character as their leader when speaking to an NPC, do you stop the game and tell them-- "Oh no, they're not the party leader-- They don't have the Inspiring Leader feat"?
So I reiterate to make clear what I am asking of you: What mechanical meaning does "Party Leader" have in games that you have played that I may not be understanding through our conversation? I feel that your meaning may help us understand why we have such different views.
Setting requirement: to be a party leader you must have Inspiring leader.
Your argument. In 1 thesis or less.
I have to ask this, because I find this 'setting requirement' very confusing: What does "Party Leader" mean mechanically to you, EightPackKilla? If someone takes any actions that you would personally consider to be 'signs of leadership' and they didn't have to feat, would you disallow them that roleplayed decision?
In every game I've played or DMed, the party leader is just something that is implied based on whoever tends to speak up when the DM asks a question, or who prompts the other players to do something. It is someone that the party as a whole make a choice to listen to. If this is the case, how do you make the definition of what you can or cannot do in the game withoutthe Inspiring Leader feat?
Are you saying that no player may answer the DM, when they ask what the party is going to do-- Unless they have taken this feat?
If a player says: "Hey, Rogue, check this door for traps!" Do you penalize them for not having the party leader feat?
If the party as a whole refer to a character as their leader when speaking to an NPC, do you stop the game and tell them-- "Oh no, they're not the party leader-- They don't have the Inspiring Leader feat"?
So I reiterate to make clear what I am asking of you: What mechanical meaning does "Party Leader" have in games that you have played that I may not be understanding through our conversation? I feel that your meaning may help us understand why we have such different views.
You have now stumbled upon the core concept finally!
hence why “depends on the campaign”
and hence my comments about leaders.
okay. We are on the same page now. Now... work through it.
Setting requirement: to be a party leader you must have Inspiring leader.
Your argument. In 1 thesis or less.
I have to ask this, because I find this 'setting requirement' very confusing: What does "Party Leader" mean mechanically to you, EightPackKilla? If someone takes any actions that you would personally consider to be 'signs of leadership' and they didn't have to feat, would you disallow them that roleplayed decision?
In every game I've played or DMed, the party leader is just something that is implied based on whoever tends to speak up when the DM asks a question, or who prompts the other players to do something. It is someone that the party as a whole make a choice to listen to. If this is the case, how do you make the definition of what you can or cannot do in the game withoutthe Inspiring Leader feat?
Are you saying that no player may answer the DM, when they ask what the party is going to do-- Unless they have taken this feat?
If a player says: "Hey, Rogue, check this door for traps!" Do you penalize them for not having the party leader feat?
If the party as a whole refer to a character as their leader when speaking to an NPC, do you stop the game and tell them-- "Oh no, they're not the party leader-- They don't have the Inspiring Leader feat"?
So I reiterate to make clear what I am asking of you: What mechanical meaning does "Party Leader" have in games that you have played that I may not be understanding through our conversation? I feel that your meaning may help us understand why we have such different views.
You have now stumbled upon the core concept finally!
hence why “depends on the campaign”
and hence my comments about leaders.
okay. We are on the same page now. Now... work through it.
Except we are definitely not on the same page? I still do not understand why you think in any campaign a player should be forced to select a feat they do not want in place of their other options.
- If a player wants it, they should be able to freely choose it.
- If the group agrees to it pre-campaign, then that's up to them, every campaign is unique. Armed with that knowledge someone may then build a character specifically to do that... Ooooor if no one wants the feat they could all then avoid coming across as a 'leader' to avoid the forced feat-- Which may give you the opposite effect a DM may be desiring here. People may avoid taking any leadership, and when the DM prompts the table for a decision, everyone may deny responsibility of making it to avoid being forced into the feat. So then you get some negative unintended consequences that can be avoided by merely making a suggestion instead of a requirement.
For me...
I would recommend to a DM who likes the idea of the supposed party leader having Inspiring Leader-- Suggest it. They get to level 4, and you could say "Oh, you know [Player], you should consider the Inspiring Leader feat, as it may fit with your character." Then the player can respond one of two ways, and they still have the choice. "Wow! It really does! Thanks for the suggestion, DM!" "Thanks for the suggestion. I think I might do [x] instead, though!"
To the OP take the Optional Feat if you want it, but's not required for you to be a great leader via Roleplay. If the DM Forces you to take the OPTIONAL Feat then I disagree with that action, and you have the option to disagree with that requirement. As Mellie said, the DM has the right to fiat certain things, or to put some restrictions on your character creation, but forcing you to make a decision for your characters advancement is not one of them. If you wanted the effects of Inspiring Leader, without taking the feat, then he can definitely deny you that.
If the question is about which PC do NPC’s think is the party’s leader, then the feat could play a role in that perception.
If the question is; does the player whose character acts as the leader of the party have to take the Inspiring Leader feat at 4th level? As a DM, you might suggest this but force it, no.
I would roleplay it something like this. NPC’s witness the PC with Inspiring Leader using it to buff the party. Afterward, the NPC’s direct their questions, attention, rewards, etc. toward that PC even if the party really doesn’t think of that character as their leader.
So, this question has been bugging me for a while... should making a PC (like my hypothetical Lawful Evil Red Dragonborn Wizard pyromancer build that I'm hoping to play one day being an example, this but can be any race or class really) the party leader automatically mean he or she should be required to take the Inspiring Leader feat? Like, say, for example, even if I originally wanted my build to have the Skilled, Prodigy, and War Wizard feats, does that mean I should give up one of those planned feats to make room for Inspiring Leader?
To help answer this question, I provided a poll, but I would really appreciate it if you would leave a post giving a detailed explanation for your answer and the reasoning behind it.
No, definitely not. Inspiring Leader is for those with high CHA who want to auto-buff their allies often. Take the feats you want for your character, and have fun!
It's a good feat for a party leader, but it's definitely not a requirement, nor should it be.
On the flip side, I've had characters with this feat who definitely weren't the party leader, and didn't want or need to be.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
I might suggest that if a character is acting in a leadership role and the player is playing the role very well, you as the DM might consider giving that player the feat, or offering it for half price (letting them boost a single stat as well)
But I would not require it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Forcing a player to take a feat because they adapted to the leadership role of the party is silly. The question asked about requiring a feat-- not taking it of your free will because you are the party leader.
I tend to fall into the leader role of most parties, just because I'm less shy about speaking up at the start of the game compared to many of the people I end up playing with. If the DM told me "Alright, level 4-- So, since you're the leader you MUST take the Inspiring Leader feat now" I'd likely just quit (assuming the DM didn't take my 'no, I'd rather not' as an answer, of course). Not to say I haven't taken it-- I took it for my shadow sorc in a game, because it suited the character's method of leadership. She was an inspiring speaker, that was absolutely a trait of hers, so it made perfect sense. But to be told that it is a requirement that I use my ASI to take a feat of the DM's choice is just bad DMing. My gruff Ranger and my awkward Druid are not inspiring leaders.
If you just want to hand out the feat to whoever does that, sure, sounds like an interesting idea. If that's the question I might then ask you what you're giving to the party cartographer, the party mule, the party banker-- To represent the roles they have taken on in the party... But the question was should it be a requirement and it most certainly should not. I was answering the question as stated, my dude. Change the goalposts all you want, but my answer is accurate to my feelings about the question posed ("Should the Inspiring Leader Feat be a Requirement for Party Leaders?"), not whatever additional questions people have added to the thread based on that question.
Okay. Let's uh... "change the goalposts" as you call it.
It's silly that a DM forces players to be HEROES or GOOD in their campaign.
It's silly that a DM forces players to GO QUESTING and not start a Microbrewery.
etc etc etc etc etc
As I stated in my post. "depends on the campaign" as well as me stating "not all leaders are inspiring, not all leaders are even good, etc etc etc" D&D is about creativity. If something like this ruffles your feathers, what happens when the DM gets really creative and does things like. "You were sold into slavery overnight and lost all your eq. You didn't lock your door at the Inn, you didn't check to see if you were followed, you didn't set some kind of alarm to notify you if someone entered your room, and they chloroformed you."
Would you throw a hissy fit right away over this (my bet is YOU personally would), or, would you wait and see where it's going first? *most* DM's don't just throw things out there for Ss & Gs, but they have a reason for it, that ties into the grand scheme. As a player, would you rather force your ideal of a character on the DM, or interact with the world the DM creates how your character would?
DM: You must be an inspiring leader
you the player: I quit
Your PC: I commit suicide and die and am gone from this campaign over being a leader, the anxiety has gotten to me.
Sure, I guess thats fun too...
Blank
MellieDM
your thinking seems very black and white. As you also stated Inspiring leader is for characters with high Charisma.
Why only high? Can a player with low charisma not take it? Do you equate charisma only to social skills, and not to attractiveness? It comes down to how people RP and how CREATIVE people are.
Why do you think we roll 20 sided dice? its not for a simple "yes" or "no" black and white world.
EX: Inspiring Leader: Char also has 7 charisma. (picture this), getting an "inspiring" speech from your leader before the battle. Your leader looks like the kid from "the Mask" (the Cher movie, not Jim Carrey), and is stuttering along in his speech left and right.
Nope. guess that won't ever happen in your games, as ". Inspiring Leader is for those with high CHA who want to auto-buff their allies often" and can't possibly ever have any uses for RP moments like that.
Blank
MellieDM
Notice this answer here. Which I agree with. Where he doesn't force Opinions like "Inspiring leader is for high charisma characters who want to auto-buff...".
TexasDevin says, he personally wouldn't require it, and that an alternative to forcing it on a char (which makes you quit) is to give the feat, or offer it for a half price. 2 different alternatives that still seem fun, and don't just paint the world black and white.
Do you see why you're a Hypocrite yet MellieDM for what you said and topping it off with your "have fun".
Blank
If a DM decides to make their players' limited mechanical choices about their characters for them, I do absolutely see that as poor DMing. The things that the players have control over, is their character. A DM controls everything else-- including setting requirements for the campaign. Such as-- Requiring the players all be good, because this is a good-based story. Or maybe the DM says, only magic-based classes, because that's what the story is about. Or maybe the DM says that you can't be a Warlock. That's just DMing. That is a DM creating a setting. Sure, those are limitations that change what I can pick mechanically, but I still have the opportunity to create a character that is mine.
However, if a DM tells the Fighter that they must choose the Archery fighting style, because that's what the DM wants the character to do, that is poor DMing.
If the DM tells the Wizard what cantrips they get, that is poor DMing.
If the DM tells the Bard at level 4 that they must take a +2 to Strength because they spent a lot of time climbing so far in the campaign, that's a poor DM.
If the DM tells the Wizard they must take the Lightly Armored feat because the DM thinks the Wizard should get armor, that's a poor DM.
If the DM tells someone they must make a specific mechanical choice about what that player's character wants, or would choose to take, that is a poor DM.
Like I said before-- If you want to give someone Inspiring Leader because you as a DM see that as what they are doing. Sure! Sounds fun. But to tell a player they MUST give up a mechanical choice in their character creation because YOU want them to take a specific feat is controlling and would make me uncomfortable.
In my mind, no D&D is better than bad D&D. If a DM told me I had to make my character to their mechanical specifications, it would no longer be my character. That DM would be better off writing a novel than DMing, as they do not wish for the players to have agency. A game of D&D is played between players and a DM, it is a game of collaboration. If the DM is forcing their players into mechanical decisions, well we have a word for that-- It's called railroading.
Since you seem to think I am against the DM doing anything the players 'don't like', here's some examples for you from the four campaigns I actively participate in, every week. Times when the DM did something that was either surprising and went against what I had intended, harmed my character mechanically, or times where I as a DM either placed limitations, or caused my players to face consequences of the things that they chose to do.
So, unless you are very firmly decided that I must be a straw man who hates when a DM does anything, I hope that you can see now that there's a difference between a DM creating a story, and perhaps creating limitations to work within the campaign story the DM is carefully crafting, and making mechanical decisions on behalf of your players.
I love, as a player, facing IC consequences for my actions or inactions. I am totally chill with a DM creating limitations for their world. If a DM told me their world only had humans, elves, and dwarfs, I would play a human, elf or dwarf. If a DM told me that their world only has humans, elves, and dwarfs and MellieDM has to play an elf, and Player #2 has to play a dwarf and Player #3 has to play a human and no you can't change them or decide that instead Player #2 wants to play an elf and MellieDM wants to play a dwarf, because I the DM said that you have to play the character I intend you to play-- I would choose not to play. What's the point? I'm not there to act out the DM's fantasies. I'm there to have fun with friends and tell a story together.
No D&D is better than bad D&D, and bad D&D can occur when players and DMs want different things. If a DM wants to make all of my decisions for me, I would recommend they make a DMPC instead. If they want to say I have to pick between x limited options, or we have to be Good characters for the story, or we're all Clerics for the story, sounds great. But don't then tell me that I'm a good cleric and oh also I've picked which domains you all get, and I've chosen your cantrips for you, and at level 4 you have to pick this feat-- Because then I don't have a character. I have a tool that you are using, and I have no identity with that character. But if the DM said 'This is a good campaign and you're all clerics', I'd go with that. That sounds like a fun concept!
Same goes if I'm a DM. I've had campaigns where I have said only good or neutral characters, and someone comes up with an evil character. Sorry, but that's the limitation I placed, so you need to rethink the character. But I would never tell a player "Alright, so because you have done xyz, you have to choose this feat at level 4 instead of your ASI/or your own chosen feat". That's just being an overcontrolling person. The characters your players have is the one thing they truly control in the world. Let them control them. Let them decide who they are, or what they would choose when they get a mechanical decision from level up.
Because both statements are true, EightPackKilla.
- TRUE: Here is the mechanical intent of the feat
- TRUE: Choose what is fun for you.
- OPINION: The answer to the question 'Should this be required': 'No'.
If you make a character with low CHA who is an inspiring leader and you as a player desire that feat to represent your RP choices, that is fun for you, and you should make that decision! However, a DM should not force that decision upon you, preventing you from taking what you want to have fun.
We can discuss mechanics day and night-- The only thing that matters are the end of the day is what the player wants to do, which is my point, EightPackKilla. The DM wanting a player to take a feat should not force a player to take a feat they do not find fun. The DM might suggest the feat, but the player should get to make the final decision of whether they take that feat, another, or take an ASI-- based on what they want for their character so that they can have fun.
“If a DM decides to make their players' limited mechanical choices about their characters for them, I do absolutely see that as poor DMing. The things that the players have control over, is their character. A DM controls everything else-- including setting requirements for the campaign. Such as-- Requiring the players all be good, because this is a good-based story. Or maybe the DM says, only magic-based classes, because that's what the story is about. Or maybe the DM says that you can't be a Warlock. That's just DMing. That is a DM creating a setting. Sure, those are limitations that change what I can pick mechanically, but I still have the opportunity to create a character that is mine. ”
Setting requirement: to be a party leader you must have Inspiring leader.
Your argument. In 1 thesis or less.
Blank
I have been in campaigns before with NPC companions:
always a possibility to have a NPC companion with inspiring leader.
Argue whatever you want. You’re not being open minded. You’re thinking narrowly from your point of view off your experiences.
Also,
goig off another of your examples:
explain how a campaign setting of good align is different than a campaign setting of Party leader needs inspiring leader?
campaign setting magic only, how is that different?
campaign setting no warlock? How is that different?
does it have more limitation to be an inspiring leader than for certain classes to be completely unavailable?
or certain alignments that provide an infinite number of different actions and reactions to situational settings?
please enlighten me.
Blank
I have to ask this, because I find this 'setting requirement' very confusing: What does "Party Leader" mean mechanically to you, EightPackKilla? If someone takes any actions that you would personally consider to be 'signs of leadership' and they didn't have to feat, would you disallow them that roleplayed decision?
In every game I've played or DMed, the party leader is just something that is implied based on whoever tends to speak up when the DM asks a question, or who prompts the other players to do something. It is someone that the party as a whole make a choice to listen to. If this is the case, how do you make the definition of what you can or cannot do in the game without the Inspiring Leader feat?
Are you saying that no player may answer the DM, when they ask what the party is going to do-- Unless they have taken this feat?
If a player says: "Hey, Rogue, check this door for traps!" Do you penalize them for not having the party leader feat?
If the party as a whole refer to a character as their leader when speaking to an NPC, do you stop the game and tell them-- "Oh no, they're not the party leader-- They don't have the Inspiring Leader feat"?
So I reiterate to make clear what I am asking of you: What mechanical meaning does "Party Leader" have in games that you have played that I may not be understanding through our conversation? I feel that your meaning may help us understand why we have such different views.
You have now stumbled upon the core concept finally!
hence why “depends on the campaign”
and hence my comments about leaders.
okay. We are on the same page now. Now... work through it.
Blank
Except we are definitely not on the same page? I still do not understand why you think in any campaign a player should be forced to select a feat they do not want in place of their other options.
Short answer to that:
you assume none of the players want it.
you assume it’s thrown spur of moment come level 4 and not something pre-campaign everyone has agreed to.
its a fun idea, an interesting different idea, but there are many parts to it that need fine tuning
Blank
Short rebuttal to that ;) ...:
- If a player wants it, they should be able to freely choose it.
- If the group agrees to it pre-campaign, then that's up to them, every campaign is unique. Armed with that knowledge someone may then build a character specifically to do that... Ooooor if no one wants the feat they could all then avoid coming across as a 'leader' to avoid the forced feat-- Which may give you the opposite effect a DM may be desiring here. People may avoid taking any leadership, and when the DM prompts the table for a decision, everyone may deny responsibility of making it to avoid being forced into the feat. So then you get some negative unintended consequences that can be avoided by merely making a suggestion instead of a requirement.
For me...
I would recommend to a DM who likes the idea of the supposed party leader having Inspiring Leader-- Suggest it. They get to level 4, and you could say "Oh, you know [Player], you should consider the Inspiring Leader feat, as it may fit with your character." Then the player can respond one of two ways, and they still have the choice. "Wow! It really does! Thanks for the suggestion, DM!" "Thanks for the suggestion. I think I might do [x] instead, though!"
[Redacted]
To the OP take the Optional Feat if you want it, but's not required for you to be a great leader via Roleplay. If the DM Forces you to take the OPTIONAL Feat then I disagree with that action, and you have the option to disagree with that requirement. As Mellie said, the DM has the right to fiat certain things, or to put some restrictions on your character creation, but forcing you to make a decision for your characters advancement is not one of them. If you wanted the effects of Inspiring Leader, without taking the feat, then he can definitely deny you that.
If the question is about which PC do NPC’s think is the party’s leader, then the feat could play a role in that perception.
If the question is; does the player whose character acts as the leader of the party have to take the Inspiring Leader feat at 4th level? As a DM, you might suggest this but force it, no.
I would roleplay it something like this. NPC’s witness the PC with Inspiring Leader using it to buff the party. Afterward, the NPC’s direct their questions, attention, rewards, etc. toward that PC even if the party really doesn’t think of that character as their leader.
Yea I felt bad, so I wanted to let Mellie know they weren't alone.