ClaytonCross
Kinder reader Inflection wanted
Personally, “Leader” is not a class, background, or character choice, its a player job which means no matter how you build your character you don't get to lead the party unless the party agrees to it. Trying to force the position on your party buy selecting a class or background results in another player doing the same thing and a generally toxic experience, in my opinion. Just as two players power gaming damage or two players fighting over other player rolls like treasure or quartermaster. I don't want an argument every time we need to make a decision because one player decided they were in charge because they made a "leader" despite the party not wanting to follow there lead or agreeing with their choice. Even if you have to "Faces" in the group who want to fight over who does the talking and comes back to the group to make a group decision, you can easily see them fighting to talk over each other. Instead, players nominate treasure, quartermaster, face, leader etc from the characters who show up based on how role playing leads them AND these rolls can change. So if you like being the party treasure but then the group finds out you enjoyed holding the gold because you were spending it... well your not party treasure any more because the party votes to give it to some else (this has happened at tables I have been at). The same with quarter master, and one player hording all the magic items and not wanting to share them out when the group calls for it, or Leader when the party no longer wants to fallow your lead.
So aren't you setting up failure and anger if a player believes by character design they have the RIGHT to lead the party? A likely out come is that the party rejects them and they become jaded and toxic to the group feeling their choices are being ignored/disrespected. If the party nominates their leader even to change it later as feels appropriate, it could be any character of any class. It is possible that the player who wants to lead becomes the leader, but that doesn't make it a static requirement and in being chosen the party doesn't feel like they are being forced into submission of one players will. Its completely possible and even likely that a player that requests to be leader but excepts that they can be removed from the position at the parties will, is selected and stays leader the whole campaign. The second you make that choice a character choice and attempt to remove the option from the party many players will reject them as leader on principle.
Alternatively, I would be in favor of Player Roll, perks for characters. If the GM wanted to give the Face, Quartermaster, Treasurer, and Leader and in game ability that would transfer with the role... I would support that.
Leader = Inspiring Leader feat?
Quartermaster = double carry weight/encumberance, +1 attunement slot?
Treasurer = 10% discount any items they buy?
Face = Advantage and -50% gold on xanthar's carousing down time checks?
Scribe = Receives a copy of all GM handouts and something good like one ASI/Feat of their choice, because this is by far the hardest player job and the most work. Giving a good bonus for it might help with the pain.
All would be recorded and lost if the job was moved to a new player.
So aren't you setting up failure and anger if a player believes by character design they have the RIGHT to lead the party? A likely out come is that the party rejects them and they become jaded and toxic to the group feeling their choices are being ignored/disrespected. If the party nominates their leader even to change it later as feels appropriate, it could be any character of any class. It is possible that the player who wants to lead becomes the leader, but that doesn't make it a static requirement and in being chosen the party doesn't feel like they are being forced into submission of one players will. Its completely possible and even likely that a player that requests to be leader but excepts that they can be removed from the position at the parties will, is selected and stays leader the whole campaign. The second you make that choice a character choice and attempt to remove the option from the party many players will reject them as leader on principle.
Alternatively, I would be in favor of Player Roll, perks for characters. If the GM wanted to give the Face, Quartermaster, Treasurer, and Leader and in game ability that would transfer with the role... I would support that.
Leader = Inspiring Leader feat?
Quartermaster = double carry weight/encumberance, +1 attunement slot?
Treasurer = 10% discount any items they buy?
Face = Advantage and -50% gold on xanthar's carousing down time checks?
Scribe = Receives a copy of all GM handouts and something good like one ASI/Feat of their choice, because this is by far the hardest player job and the most work. Giving a good bonus for it might help with the pain.
All would be recorded and lost if the job was moved to a new player.
Last edited:
