Does Inspiring Leader work on undead you Control?

Inspiring Leader Says:

choose up to six friendly creatures (which can include yourself) within 30 feet of you can can see or hear you and can understand you. Each creature gains temporary hit point equal to your level + your Charisma modifier.

It seems to me that mindless Skeletons and Zombies would be immune to this sort of buff. However I can’t seem to find any rule for that in 5E.

Is there any reason for Inspiring Leader not to affect your zombies and skeletons?

I’m playing a Marilith demon who is leader of a evil campaign. After hitting very high levels, how should I go about keeping the party together?

During a while of playing a 2e session with multiple 3.5e conversions, I have recently (In the past 7 years) experimenting with playing Evil campaigns and playing Monster characters such as Mind Flayers (Which I’m really good with), A Gloom (Part of an Epic Level beginning game), Baatezu, Trolls, Fairies, Sprites, Hunefers (Another Epic Level beginning Campaign), Bugbears, and a small hand full of other monsters. In this campaign, We have been going on for 2 years of gameplay, reaching levels between 64-76

Current Party

  • Nuetral Evil Medusa (Lvl 72 Wizard/ Archmage 5)
  • Chaotic Evil Marilith Tanar’ri (Lvl 77 Warrior)
  • Chaotic Evil Vrock Tanar’ri (Lvl 38 Barbarian/Lvl 34 Legendary Dreadnought)
  • Chaotic Evil Succubus Tanar’ri (Lvl 66 Bard/ Lvl 2 Rouge)
  • Lawful Evil Noble Efreeti (Lvl 20 Fighter/Lvl 48 Fire Elementalist)
  • Neutral Evil Chameleon Greater Barghest (Lvl 56 Assassin/Lvl 20 Perfect Wight)
  • Chaotic Evil Vampire Drow (Lvl 32 Blackguard/ Lvl 20 Cleric/ Lvl 24 Divine Emissiary)
  • Neutral Evil Corpse Tearer Linnorm (Lvl 60 Necromancer/ Lvl 18 Dread Necromancer)

I am having a slight problem trying to figure out how to keep this diverse group together. The blood war, the personal problems, and the ambitions in the group are causing us to be a bit nervous. Each of us is having a difficult time with personal goals. During our time we have battled the armies of heavens, slaughtered many baatezu/devils, plundered villages, battled against the forces of good, fought against the harpers including battles against Mystras chosen, and basically ravaged most planes. Now after a while of our power growing, some of us have become slightly more distant from others and others have become a little suspicious of each other, causing many to create secondary plans and safeguards just in case. I do not want this to grow out of control, for this campaign is too amazing to quit. I need a solution that does not involve a common enemy (for specific reasons) or involves money. So, how should I string together this merry band?

Does the leader election problem only apply to process replication/redundancy?

The leader election problem is said to be

In distributed computing, leader election is the process of designating a single process as the organizer of some task distributed among several computers (nodes). Before the task is begun, all network nodes are either unaware which node will serve as the “leader” (or coordinator) of the task, or unable to communicate with the current coordinator. After a leader election algorithm has been run, however, each node throughout the network recognizes a particular, unique node as the task leader.

As far as the leader’s responsibility is concerned, are the candidates identical?

Does the leader election problem apply only to processes which are replicas, i.e. to process redundancy? In other words, does the leader election problem not apply to processes which are not replicas, i.e. processes without redundancy?

My confusions come from:

  • Design Data Intensive Programs by Kleppmann introduces the concept of “leader” in Chapter 5 Replication, while the election problem in Chapter 9: Consistency and Consensus.

  • Distributed Systems by Coulouris introduces the concept of “primary replica manager” and “backup replica manager” in Chapter 18 Replication, while the election problem in Chapter 15: Coordination and Agreement.

So I wonder if the election problem applies only to replication (more specifically, process replication), or also to cases which don’t involve replication?


[ Politics ] Open Question : I thought being POTUS is a 24/7 job. Do you think any other world leader spends his mornings like this?

After waking up early, Mr. Trump typically watches news shows recorded the previous night on his “Super TiVo,” several DVRs connected to a single remote. (The devices are set to record “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on Fox Business Network; “Hannity,” “Tucker Carlson Tonight” and “The Story With Martha MacCallum” on Fox News; and “Anderson Cooper 360” on CNN.) He takes in those shows, and the “Fox & Friends” morning program, then flings out comments on his iPhone. Then he watches as his tweets reverberate on cable channels and news sites. Source:

How to do Distributed Job Scheduling after the Leader was elected and slaves are known – (bully)

I’m building a system that processes key,value pairs on a continuous basis in a loop, until terminated.

How do I schedule tasks on the leader and make slaves execute them? This is a realm of distributed objects. It will require the leader to connect to every slave via TCP/IP. I got that part.

Then, the leader should deploy tasks to slaves and be notified of progress. It is known as Job Scheduling, Distributed Task Scheduling, etc.

Computer science slides I’ve seen were too high level, without a working Java example. Can you point me to any example of an isolated, practical implementation? I don’t want an all-in-one system like Spark. I need just the distributed job scheduling, as simple as you can. Like when you’d show me a lab-grown heart that lives and beats, without showing me a whole human.

Can you point to any such computer science example, or java code, or describe yourself how the algorithm should look in the leader and in the slave? Some CS experts know this from distributed operating systems classes. I didn’t take those.

Multi leader replication vs Single-leader performance

I’m trying to wrap my head around a hypothetical scenario.

Imagine we have a very write-heavy distributed database and sharding is not an option.

I wonder if / how is multi-leader replication (write-write) more efficient than single-leader scenario (write-read) since write-write has overhead to sync databases and propagate writes to the other master(s) ending up with the same number of write operations, ultimately.

In which cases is multi-leader replication for write-heavy applications considered more performant than single-leader and in which cases it is not?

I understand the question is broad and nuanced but would be happy to read some thoughts on the subject.