So, this question has been bugging me for a while... should making a PC the party leader automatically mean he or she should be required to take the Inspiring Leader feat?
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.
I answered directly, that instead of his hypothetical character, with the optimization with skilled, prodigy, and war wizard. That sometimes, the most fun in D&D, is being open to new things. I explained, that the inspiring leader thing could be a campaign requirement, more than a "spur of the moment DM forces on you decision". I answered it from both a player perspective for OP, and a DM perspective for OP. As OP didn't specifically state he was a player, nor did he specifically state he was a DM, he gave a scenario. A scenario, that Mellie and I had slightly differeing interpretations on what OP was saying, but we had the same take on Inspiring leader, pertaining to it being forced upon a player by DM as level 4 approached, and not having been a campaign requirement to begin with.
From our conversation not on the forums we have: "
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?
My answer was a flat-out no because they stated they wanted another feat, they didn't want Inspiring Leader. I would never, ever, ever in a million years tell any player of mine that they should choose something because they feel like 'they have to', whether that was a direction in a dungeon, a feat, or their character's name. If this person posted 'If I don't have high Charisma, can I still take Inspiring Leader?' My answer would have been emphatically 'YES!' Because the player can make that decision for themselves.
So you state here that:
i am also saying, it’s not for you, it’s not for me even, but it might be for some people, let people make their own decisions so make things sound more open minded.
This is precisely what my original response was doing. OP said they wanted a feat other than Inspiring Leader, but wanted to know if it was 'required' or if 'it should be required' for them to instead take Inspiring Leader. I told them the mechanical intent of the feat to clarify to them that the feat is not made as a requirement for anyone who wants to 'lead' the party, and then told them to do what they wanted/have fun. If the OP had said 'I feel like Inspiring Leader fits the best because I want to be the leader-- should it be required?' I would have said, if you want Inspiring Leader you should take it, but no mechanical decision should ever be required. But that wasn't the question-- The question was "I want feat xyz, but because this character is a leader-- Do I have to take leader instead?"
his idea needs work. It’s not a bad idea, just different, but it needs work
This is where I realized what I discussed above. I feel like there may have been a misinterpretation of OP's intent. They were never asking if they should apply this requirement to their players. They were asking as a player, if they had to build their character in a specific way-- which I flatly stated they did not have to. That defeats what D&D offers, which is the ability to create nearly limitless combinations of features and stats and items and traits and roleplaying characteristics that make each character unique to who created them and the campaign that they play within."
Even here, OP gives a hypothetical build, not a concrete build, but hypothetical of having wanted different feats.
Since the OP never explains what stage the campaign is in. Is he a player, or a DM. If this is being forced on him or recommended. If he is the one forcing or recommending. We both had different interpretations of the OP, as he didn't give a ton of details. And which is why I still, (and am the only one of the votes thus far) that said "It depends on the campaign".
From that vague posting by the OP I am not going to jump to conclusions and assume details that aren't specifically stated. Mellie and I both understand where each other came from, and why there was more confusion, I can name atleast 3 people who still seem confused, of the discussion.
It's not just Mellie's self-conscious of not letting the hypocrite go. Mellie, subconsciously, understood at what I was getting at, and wanted to fully see what I was getting at.
And so, I re-iterate my main main argument: D&D is completely based off creativity and open-mindedness. and not closing the door on things entirely, to follow "optimization" paths.
Can you imagine how boring D&D would be if the DM's just did optimization paths for everything?
edit: Makes you wonder about the OP. They never come back, and ask questions or clarify things, its like the poll is the only thing being checked. Which, also, does not answer any of the details with no answer.
I would like to remind the kind community members involved in this thread to read the Site Rules and Guidelines. Specifically, I am asking to contribute to the discussion without flaming, trolling and making senseless attacks to one another.
Boy what a silly thread, of course it shouldn't- the party leader is something the party either decides upon or comes to it organically, and the inspiring leader feat really has nothing to do with it.
I’ve been trying to figure out why my first reaction to the OP was a definite “No!”
If a DM asked if it was ok to make a campaign that didn’t allow elves as PC’s, I’d say yes. A world without gnomes, no problem. No wizards, only human PC’s, etc. still no problem.
But requiring a PC to take a particular feat is still a “No!”
DMs create the world. They can decide on the boundaries. They set the stage and play the roles of narrator and NPCs.
They are not a director telling actors how to act.
DMs should help their players make informed decisions about the characters they create but the decisions must be made by the players. New players will need more help. Pre-made characters can be used at times and occasionally a party might need to be railroaded a little but experienced players are not going to appreciate a lot of that.
DMs create the world, players create the characters and together they create the story.
Even requiring characters to take a feat, would be an acceptable angle for me, provided the stipulation was known at the outset. But I still answer 'no' to the OP.
In a very specific campaign I could see picking 4 or more feats, starting a group at level 4 (or more likely level-5), and then telling the players, "You each must take one of these feats, and only one of you may start with any one of them."
So one player gets, for example, Observant, one gets Inspiring Leader, one gets Athlete, and one gets Healer. Then your players would likely build their characters with this in mind.
However, even in this situation I could not see requiring the character with this feat to take the lead. Primarily, because this takes the characters choices from the players. The Leader says, let's charge in the front gate. The Healer says let's try something more subtle. All of the players charge in the front gate at the DM's ruling. No, each player must be allowed to decide this.
The closest I would come is to use a tactic from Jerry Holkins, assign that player the 'job' of 'Decisionist' so when an impasse is reached, and the party votes on the course, the Decisionist's vote counts for double, as a tie breaker.
Likewise a 'job' should be assigned to each player in this scenario and likewise, if you choose to assign the feats and jobs, all of the selections should be connected in that way.
Anyway, it's generally a bad idea, though I could imagine a very specific context where this could work well, and I don't think this is what the OP had in mind at all.
Though I think it would be good for those who chose to be the leader. However, if people are following you because they can't think of anything else to do, that's not your fault. You didn't choose to be the leader.
I like the sounds of your wizard, I think you should give it a go.
Kinda like my 2.5ft tall pixie bard who specializes in intimidation and persuasion; who said you have to look scary to scare your assailant into killing his friend.
Just to latch onto a point someone made earlier, and I don't think someone brought up at this point (although I admit I skimmed a few of the longer posts since there seemed to be a lot of repetition and misunderstanding) But anyway... Inspiring Leader does actually have a minimum CHA requirement of 13. Which isn't particularly charismatic, but it does mean that it's only available to characters with above average charisma.
I now have a fun idea I might start using. If anyone in the party role plays a meaningfully inspiring pep talk that fits in character, the party will get the benefits of the leadership feat for free.
I now have a fun idea I might start using. If anyone in the party role plays a meaningfully inspiring pep talk that fits in character, the party will get the benefits of the leadership feat for free.
That sounds fun, but be careful about setting that precedent, since it would most likely result in characters looking for any dumb excuse to give a rousing speech. Which now that I'm writing it out, actually sounds hilarious, so uh... I retract my objection.
Some bad leaders are very inspiring, some good leaders are not so inspiring. I have a Diviner/Knowledge Cleric that would make a good leader if necessary, but he prefers to advise and doesn't care for euphemisms and platitudes. But there are plenty of times when he ends up being the leader anyways. When he gives speeches it is a lot more of a lecture, thought experiment or philosophical discussion.
So even though he could benefit from the Inspiring Leader feat mechanically, roleplay-wise it does not fit his character. He is far more likely to use Heroism or Enhance Ability if he wants to provide temp hp to the party, or False Life on himself.
Echoing the sentiments of nearly everyone else: no, a player should never be forced to take a feat using their own ASI. DM wants a player to have a specific feat? Okay, justgive it to them.
My read on this whole situation is that the OP is the DM of a campaign that wants to force this, created this poll seeking to validate their plan, and has lashed out at those whom disagree.
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.
Echoing the sentiments of nearly everyone else: no, a player should never be forced to take a feat using their own ASI. DM wants a player to have a specific feat? Okay, justgive it to them.
My read on this whole situation is that the OP is the DM of a campaign that wants to force this, created this poll seeking to validate their plan, and has lashed out at those whom disagree.
I must have missed the "lashed out" part, because I don't see any follow up posts from the OP at all. He's actually upvoted at least one post that didn't agree with him.
Echoing the sentiments of nearly everyone else: no, a player should never be forced to take a feat using their own ASI. DM wants a player to have a specific feat? Okay, justgive it to them.
I must say that I agree with this sentiment, and would even go a step further to say that free feats given to player for good RP are always a fun and very satisfying reward.
Echoing the sentiments of nearly everyone else: no, a player should never be forced to take a feat using their own ASI. DM wants a player to have a specific feat? Okay, justgive it to them.
My read on this whole situation is that the OP is the DM of a campaign that wants to force this, created this poll seeking to validate their plan, and has lashed out at those whom disagree.
I must have missed the "lashed out" part, because I don't see any follow up posts from the OP at all. He's actually upvoted at least one post that didn't agree with him.
My mistake, I thought someone else in this thread was the OP.
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.
I now have a fun idea I might start using. If anyone in the party role plays a meaningfully inspiring pep talk that fits in character, the party will get the benefits of the leadership feat for free.
That sounds fun, but be careful about setting that precedent, since it would most likely result in characters looking for any dumb excuse to give a rousing speech. Which now that I'm writing it out, actually sounds hilarious, so uh... I retract my objection.
I wouldn't require it for one simple reason: What if the party changes leaders? if Mr. Inspiring Leader couldn't lead ants to a picnic, and everybody decides that his leadership is more of a hindrance than a benefit, then what? Does he get to trade in Inspiring Leader for another feat? Does the new Leader have to trade a feat he already has for IL, or take it at the first opportunity?
What about leaders who aren't inspirational? What if the party's leader is a tactician and strategist rather than a speech-maker?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I answered directly, that instead of his hypothetical character, with the optimization with skilled, prodigy, and war wizard. That sometimes, the most fun in D&D, is being open to new things.
I explained, that the inspiring leader thing could be a campaign requirement, more than a "spur of the moment DM forces on you decision".
I answered it from both a player perspective for OP, and a DM perspective for OP. As OP didn't specifically state he was a player, nor did he specifically state he was a DM, he gave a scenario. A scenario, that Mellie and I had slightly differeing interpretations on what OP was saying, but we had the same take on Inspiring leader, pertaining to it being forced upon a player by DM as level 4 approached, and not having been a campaign requirement to begin with.
From our conversation not on the forums we have:
"
My answer was a flat-out no because they stated they wanted another feat, they didn't want Inspiring Leader. I would never, ever, ever in a million years tell any player of mine that they should choose something because they feel like 'they have to', whether that was a direction in a dungeon, a feat, or their character's name. If this person posted 'If I don't have high Charisma, can I still take Inspiring Leader?' My answer would have been emphatically 'YES!' Because the player can make that decision for themselves.
So you state here that:
This is precisely what my original response was doing. OP said they wanted a feat other than Inspiring Leader, but wanted to know if it was 'required' or if 'it should be required' for them to instead take Inspiring Leader. I told them the mechanical intent of the feat to clarify to them that the feat is not made as a requirement for anyone who wants to 'lead' the party, and then told them to do what they wanted/have fun. If the OP had said 'I feel like Inspiring Leader fits the best because I want to be the leader-- should it be required?' I would have said, if you want Inspiring Leader you should take it, but no mechanical decision should ever be required. But that wasn't the question-- The question was "I want feat xyz, but because this character is a leader-- Do I have to take leader instead?"
This is where I realized what I discussed above. I feel like there may have been a misinterpretation of OP's intent. They were never asking if they should apply this requirement to their players. They were asking as a player, if they had to build their character in a specific way-- which I flatly stated they did not have to. That defeats what D&D offers, which is the ability to create nearly limitless combinations of features and stats and items and traits and roleplaying characteristics that make each character unique to who created them and the campaign that they play within."
Even here, OP gives a hypothetical build, not a concrete build, but hypothetical of having wanted different feats.
Since the OP never explains what stage the campaign is in. Is he a player, or a DM. If this is being forced on him or recommended. If he is the one forcing or recommending.
We both had different interpretations of the OP, as he didn't give a ton of details. And which is why I still, (and am the only one of the votes thus far) that said "It depends on the campaign".
From that vague posting by the OP I am not going to jump to conclusions and assume details that aren't specifically stated. Mellie and I both understand where each other came from, and why there was more confusion, I can name atleast 3 people who still seem confused, of the discussion.
It's not just Mellie's self-conscious of not letting the hypocrite go. Mellie, subconsciously, understood at what I was getting at, and wanted to fully see what I was getting at.
And so, I re-iterate my main main argument:
D&D is completely based off creativity and open-mindedness. and not closing the door on things entirely, to follow "optimization" paths.
Can you imagine how boring D&D would be if the DM's just did optimization paths for everything?
edit: Makes you wonder about the OP. They never come back, and ask questions or clarify things, its like the poll is the only thing being checked. Which, also, does not answer any of the details with no answer.
Blank
I would like to remind the kind community members involved in this thread to read the Site Rules and Guidelines. Specifically, I am asking to contribute to the discussion without flaming, trolling and making senseless attacks to one another.
I thank you in advance for your contribution.
Boy what a silly thread, of course it shouldn't- the party leader is something the party either decides upon or comes to it organically, and the inspiring leader feat really has nothing to do with it.
I’ve been trying to figure out why my first reaction to the OP was a definite “No!”
If a DM asked if it was ok to make a campaign that didn’t allow elves as PC’s, I’d say yes. A world without gnomes, no problem. No wizards, only human PC’s, etc. still no problem.
But requiring a PC to take a particular feat is still a “No!”
DMs create the world. They can decide on the boundaries. They set the stage and play the roles of narrator and NPCs.
They are not a director telling actors how to act.
DMs should help their players make informed decisions about the characters they create but the decisions must be made by the players. New players will need more help. Pre-made characters can be used at times and occasionally a party might need to be railroaded a little but experienced players are not going to appreciate a lot of that.
DMs create the world, players create the characters and together they create the story.
Even requiring characters to take a feat, would be an acceptable angle for me, provided the stipulation was known at the outset. But I still answer 'no' to the OP.
In a very specific campaign I could see picking 4 or more feats, starting a group at level 4 (or more likely level-5), and then telling the players, "You each must take one of these feats, and only one of you may start with any one of them."
So one player gets, for example, Observant, one gets Inspiring Leader, one gets Athlete, and one gets Healer. Then your players would likely build their characters with this in mind.
However, even in this situation I could not see requiring the character with this feat to take the lead. Primarily, because this takes the characters choices from the players. The Leader says, let's charge in the front gate. The Healer says let's try something more subtle. All of the players charge in the front gate at the DM's ruling. No, each player must be allowed to decide this.
The closest I would come is to use a tactic from Jerry Holkins, assign that player the 'job' of 'Decisionist' so when an impasse is reached, and the party votes on the course, the Decisionist's vote counts for double, as a tie breaker.
Likewise a 'job' should be assigned to each player in this scenario and likewise, if you choose to assign the feats and jobs, all of the selections should be connected in that way.
Anyway, it's generally a bad idea, though I could imagine a very specific context where this could work well, and I don't think this is what the OP had in mind at all.
Extended Signature
Though I think it would be good for those who chose to be the leader. However, if people are following you because they can't think of anything else to do, that's not your fault. You didn't choose to be the leader.
I like the sounds of your wizard, I think you should give it a go.
Kinda like my 2.5ft tall pixie bard who specializes in intimidation and persuasion; who said you have to look scary to scare your assailant into killing his friend.
Just to latch onto a point someone made earlier, and I don't think someone brought up at this point (although I admit I skimmed a few of the longer posts since there seemed to be a lot of repetition and misunderstanding) But anyway... Inspiring Leader does actually have a minimum CHA requirement of 13. Which isn't particularly charismatic, but it does mean that it's only available to characters with above average charisma.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I now have a fun idea I might start using. If anyone in the party role plays a meaningfully inspiring pep talk that fits in character, the party will get the benefits of the leadership feat for free.
That sounds fun, but be careful about setting that precedent, since it would most likely result in characters looking for any dumb excuse to give a rousing speech. Which now that I'm writing it out, actually sounds hilarious, so uh... I retract my objection.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Some bad leaders are very inspiring, some good leaders are not so inspiring. I have a Diviner/Knowledge Cleric that would make a good leader if necessary, but he prefers to advise and doesn't care for euphemisms and platitudes. But there are plenty of times when he ends up being the leader anyways. When he gives speeches it is a lot more of a lecture, thought experiment or philosophical discussion.
So even though he could benefit from the Inspiring Leader feat mechanically, roleplay-wise it does not fit his character. He is far more likely to use Heroism or Enhance Ability if he wants to provide temp hp to the party, or False Life on himself.
Echoing the sentiments of nearly everyone else: no, a player should never be forced to take a feat using their own ASI. DM wants a player to have a specific feat? Okay, just give it to them.
My read on this whole situation is that the OP is the DM of a campaign that wants to force this, created this poll seeking to validate their plan, and has lashed out at those whom disagree.
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.
I must have missed the "lashed out" part, because I don't see any follow up posts from the OP at all. He's actually upvoted at least one post that didn't agree with him.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
I must say that I agree with this sentiment, and would even go a step further to say that free feats given to player for good RP are always a fun and very satisfying reward.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
My mistake, I thought someone else in this thread was the OP.
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.
It’s not really about being too restrictive but about creating a “party role tax”. No one should pay a tax to fill a party role.
Now you get it ;)
I wouldn't require it for one simple reason: What if the party changes leaders? if Mr. Inspiring Leader couldn't lead ants to a picnic, and everybody decides that his leadership is more of a hindrance than a benefit, then what? Does he get to trade in Inspiring Leader for another feat? Does the new Leader have to trade a feat he already has for IL, or take it at the first opportunity?
What about leaders who aren't inspirational? What if the party's leader is a tactician and strategist rather than a speech-maker?