UA is up: Sidekicks

[Beechgnome]

https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf

Honestly, I don't know what to make of this... The guard who joins your adventures levels up...like a really simple fighter? And your dog does too?

[the_brazenburn]

I love it!

I'd tried to homebrew something along these lines before. Interesting to see that "expert" is a class here.

[Man_Over_Game]

Summary: Make a Warrior (Champion), Expert (Thief), or Spellcaster (Wizard). They level up like classes, they're boring, and they have fairly static abilities that helps them fill in the role they're there to fill without doing anything cool.

Which is perfect for an NPC. It's not bad at all.

[Unoriginal]

Man, this UA is pretty good by itself, but it opens so many joke opportunities I'm not sure which to start with...



https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf

Honestly, I don't know what to make of this... The guard who joins your adventures levels up...like a really simple fighter? And your dog does too?

Mike Mearls: "Buy 5e books or I'll make your friend level up in Warrior. And your little dog too."

[some guy]

Useful, but I feel the spellcaster sidekick having access to spell levels at the same speed as pc classes is a bit much. It's a sidekick, not a npc hero. 1/2 caster speed of spell progression would be better. Also, a spellcaster sidekick is a lot of bookkeeping for a side-character.
I like the Danger sense on the warrior sidekick, and general survivability of it.

[lunaticfringe]

I dig this more than Colville's Followers system. I'm pretty sure one of my players will eventually want to play one of these and it seems simple enough to implement. Solid UA all round.

[Unoriginal]

This would also be useful for that "Pact of the Humble" Warlock idea I had.



I like the Danger sense on the warrior sidekick, and general survivability of it.

It immediately made me think of a cowardly-but-loyal guy with a skullcap, chainmail and a mace. Very evocative.

[lunaticfringe]

This would also be useful for that "Pact of the Humble" Warlock idea I had.


I had a similar thought for a Hedge Witch. Warlock through traditions passed down or just a natural connection to the arcane, not because of a Pact or bargain.

Also a generic Nature Mage without stereotypical Druid B.S.

[Unoriginal]

I had a similar thought for a Hedge Witch. Warlock through traditions passed down or just a natural connection to the arcane, not because of a Pact or bargain.

Also a generic Nature Mage without stereotypical Druid B.S.

Oh my idea was to have a Warlock who somehow entered a pact with, rather than a powerful entity, a weak being such as a kobold, pixie or the like. So their main benefit is that they travel with their Patron in tow.

I didn't know how to make the Humble Patron's progression both pleasant and mechanically sound, though, but this UA would be useful for that.

[Luccan]

These are literally the generic classes from 3.5, updated for 5e. Except, the spellcaster knows more spells than a sorcerer... The NPC sidekick spellcaster has more spells known than a sorcerer :smallfurious:

No, I don't care that it's only one, and yes, I realize WotC hasn't seemed to care for sorcerers since their creation, but I'm constantly amazed by the little ways they like to make sorcerers seem crappy.

Edit: Overall, I actually like this UA. It sets up a fairly easy NPC ally/follower progression that isn't so terribly weak as to be useless.

[Osrogue]

So I can play a direwolf pseudo-warlock without short rest reliance? Sweet.

[MaxWilson]

https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf

Honestly, I don't know what to make of this... The guard who joins your adventures levels up...like a really simple fighter? And your dog does too?

I like seeing this idea get some design attention, but honestly I'd just give the thing levels in Fighter/Thief/whatever like I've always done before. This UA is additional rules complexity with no extra value that I can see--the grey text says this UA is designed so you won't have to recalculate the sidekick's CR, but so what? Clearly this UA is violating all of the CR rules anyway (a 120 HP Dire Wolf with Extra Attack is no longer really CR 1), and nothing says you have to calculate CR for sidekicks in the first place, so this seems like an overly-complicated solution in search of a problem.

But I repeat that I'm glad to see this design space getting some attention, and I'm glad this UA was written.

[jas61292]

Useful, but I feel the spellcaster sidekick having access to spell levels at the same speed as pc classes is a bit much. It's a sidekick, not a npc hero.

I'm guessing their thought is that they are not quite on par with the players because they will be lower level. Yes, they level up at the same rate that you do, but they are always starting at level 1. Unless you meet them, befriend them and get them to join you for long enough fir the DM to consider them a sidekickap at level 1, they will always be behind. Which is generally a good thing.

That said, the same mechanic that makes this fair also hurts in some ways, as it makes it very hard for a higher level character to get a sidekick that can be worthwhile, as if the character befriends the NPC at 10th level, they will always be 10 feels behind, while if they befriend them at 3rd level , they will be much more useful.

[the_brazenburn]

This will probably be extremely useful for when I run OotA in a few months.

All those NPCs give me headaches.

[Rixitichil]

Is this the Unearth Arcana supplement needed to make Animal Friendship amazing?

[Beechgnome]

Man, this UA is pretty good by itself, but it opens so many joke opportunities I'm not sure which to start with...




Mike Mearls: "Buy 5e books or I'll make your friend level up in Warrior. And your little dog too."

This made me laugh.

I like the expert and also the focus on survivability with danger sense, perfect for a sidekick.

I have a few issues: the spellcaster is complicated when a sidekick shouldn't be, the sidekick seems on par with the character when there should be some lag and the animal space isn't really explored...they can be warriors but nothing that says, I am a beast. (I'm not even going to get into how this compares with the beast master pet).

But... If you consider an awakened shrub a 'creature', then a druid could raise a nice little Groot as a warrior. As a DM I would perhaps allow a couple of those ASIs to be used to grow in size.

I guess... good start?

[Hadoken]

So I can play a direwolf pseudo-warlock without short rest reliance? Sweet.

I don't see how you would. In order for your sidekick to level up in the spellcaster class, it needs to be able to speak a language from its stat block. What this does mean, though, is pact of the chain warlocks can level up their Imps, Quasits, or Sprites (but not Pseudodragons) as either spellcasters (your choice of spell list!) or experts. That opens up a lot of cool options.

[Beechgnome]

So I can play a direwolf pseudo-warlock without short rest reliance? Sweet.

Maybe not direwolf but Worg, yes.

[mephnick]

I just don't get why I'd use this?

It takes 5 seconds to make up a low level NPC as it is and there are a bunch listed in various manuals. It doesn't solve whatever CR calculation problem they're talking about because the characters grow stronger...

I'm missing something

[MaxWilson]

It doesn't solve whatever CR calculation problem they're talking about because the characters grow stronger...

This exactly.

Plus, the wackiness of level-advancement is a turn off. I was expecting something like "the NPC gains a full share of XP" or maybe "the NPC gains a half-share of XP," but instead... the sidekick gains a level when you do, regardless of what it does in the adventure, seriously? Why?

[Unoriginal]

I just don't get why I'd use this?

It takes 5 seconds to make up a low level NPC as it is and there are a bunch listed in various manuals. It doesn't solve whatever CR calculation problem they're talking about because the characters grow stronger...

I'm missing something

This allows you to make a NPC progress with PCs without worrying about situations like "this NPC was CR 2, but now the group is going to hit lvl 6, do I have to make them CR 3 so they can keep up with the group?"

[jaappleton]

I don’t hate it.

I fully admit it’s not what I was hoping for.

But it’s fairly useful. It works.

I like it for making an ‘inverted Ranger’, where I play the animal and the sidekick is my companion.

[Foxhound438]

Is this the Unearth Arcana supplement needed to make Animal Friendship amazing?

Almost... If everyone wanted a pet I would consider giving everyone a companion with this warrior template at slightly delayed level progression rather than telling them they have to be beastmasters or chain warlocks, but there would have to be a hard 3 PC limit to the game, and I'd probably limit it to non-flying animals early to keep everyone from just picking giant owl.

[Rusvul]

Here's a question: for those of you who like sidekicks, and would consider using them in your game, what would you want the level gap between PCs and sidekicks to be? IIRC, Leadership cohorts were always two levels behind in 3.5. Does that seem appropriate for 5e?

[MaxWilson]

This allows you to make a NPC progress with PCs without worrying about situations like "this NPC was CR 2, but now the group is going to hit lvl 6, do I have to make them CR 3 so they can keep up with the group?"

Why wouldn't you just give the NPC some more levels in Fighter and not even bother calculating the CR? Who cares if a 5th level fighter is CR 2 or 3? It's a 5th level fighter.

[Beechgnome]

Of note: animated armor, scarecrow and lion are all CR 1. Dorothy is ready to storm the wizard's castle.

[Unoriginal]

Here's a question: for those of you who like sidekicks, and would consider using them in your game, what would you want the level gap between PCs and sidekicks to be? IIRC, Leadership cohorts were always two levels behind in 3.5. Does that seem appropriate for 5e?

Depends who the NCP is and at which level the PCs befriend them.

The sidekick does eat up a share of XPs equal to the one of each PC, so even if they start at lvl 1 when the group is lvl 5 they'll grow fast. For others I'd have them pre-leveled, maybe equal to the party.


Of note: animated armor, scarecrow and lion are all CR 1. Dorothy is ready to storm the wizard's castle.

But is she doesn't optimize the munchkins will give her a hard time.

[Rockphed]

Am I blind, or did they completely forget to include hit-die size in that document?

[Man_Over_Game]

Am I blind, or did they completely forget to include hit-die size in that document?

Nope, they definitely forgot!

"They get hit die as they level up, refer to their stat block for their hit die"

-Sidekick blocks contain no hit die.

[Edit] They're referring to the original creature's stat block, unrelated to the Sidekick UA. Note that it says "Sidekick's Stat Block", not "Sidekick Stat Block"

[MaxWilson]

Nope, they definitely forgot!

"They get hit die as they level up, refer to their stat block for their hit die"

-Stat blocks contain no hit die.

Yes they do. E.g. the Dire Wolf has 5d10+10 = 5 d10s, plus Con bonus. See e.g. https://5thsrd.org/gamemaster_rules/monsters/dire_wolf/.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm not sure if I like that as an option though. Species or Race has no relevance to HP for character levels, but it does for creature levels?.

I think an easy fix would be to just add HP based on the average rolls of the originating classes for the sidekick's classes:

Fighter uses 1d10
Rogue uses 1d8
Wizard uses 1d6

Which would translate to:

Warrior gets +6 per level
Expert gets +5 per level
Spellcaster gets +4 per level

[SirThoreth]

Is it me, but do these seem like they'd also be decent alternate classes for a more low-power campaign?

[JackPhoenix]

So I can play a direwolf pseudo-warlock without short rest reliance? Sweet.

You can't. Spellcasting class requires the base creature to speak at least one language.

But yeah, I like it. My group just yesterday lost a player, and the rest has got a dryad (without the tree dependence) tagging along, and she's got just the right CR... I think I'll have an use for it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Is it me, but do these seem like they'd also be decent alternate classes for a more low-power campaign?

They're designed to be more boring though.

Warrior is a Fighter, but without any feats and all static abilities that focus on boring attacks or staying alive (good as a boring tank)
Expert is a Rogue that is only good for Helping or for using skills (good as a boring skill monkey)
Spellcaster is a healer or damage dealer who is incentivized to specialize rather than be versatile (as boring as a spellcaster can get)

All the NPCs are designed to fill a single role and do so as boringly as possible, so that they don't steal the spotlight from the players. You *could* play these, but you might not have much fun doing so.

What I think is actually quite funny is that the Warrior is not much different than the Champion, which says a lot.

[Corran]

This exactly.

Plus, the wackiness of level-advancement is a turn off. I was expecting something like "the NPC gains a full share of XP" or maybe "the NPC gains a half-share of XP," but instead... the sidekick gains a level when you do, regardless of what it does in the adventure, seriously? Why?
Why do you not like how level advancement is handled?

I think they handled it this way, because if the sidekick shared the XP with PC's then it would be really problematic to bring a sidekick into the group (at least for the majority of groups I would assume), cause there would probably be at least one person that wouldn't like getting less xp for having around a sidekick for which tey don't really care all that much. Much less of a problem for groups that use milestone xp or whatever that's called (for example, in most campaigns I play, I almost never count xp, cause I know that when the character whose player counts xp levels up, we all level up), but it would be a problem for groups where characters gain xp based on what encounters they are involved in/ what they kill/ etc.

Also, it allows you to use your sidekick for background tasks that can still be useful. For example, instead of bringing my expert sidekick into the dungeon we are going into, which would mean one extra character someone has to play during combat, I have the sidekick stay behind and investigate the motives of the noble who gave us the quest to go into the dungeon and recover his deceased wife's necklace (of doom!). If the sidekick powers up regardless of how present it is to combat encounters, that means that I have the freedom to utilize the sidekick however I please without being pressured by a desire to feed it xp. That means that the sidekick will be as much present to encounters as I really want it to be. It's cool to have a sidekick, but I would want it mostly for the rp and for whatever little utility or extra protection it can offer me. Having it eat away at the group's xp, or having a reason to have the sidekick be present in every single combat encounters, is a cost and a temptation that also leads to a cost, that I would not like to see associated with using a sidekick, cause I think it would make me enjoy it less.

[ATHATH]

They missed out on an opportunity by calling the spellcasting NPC class "Spellcaster" instead of "Adept".

[Unoriginal]

Am I blind, or did they completely forget to include hit-die size in that document?

They did not forget. You go to the sidekick's NPC statblock and add one dice of the relevant size.

[MaxWilson]

Why do you not like how level advancement is handled?

I think they handled it this way, because if the sidekick shared the XP with PC's then it would be really problematic to bring a sidekick into the group (at least for the majority of groups I would assume), cause there would probably be at least one person that wouldn't like getting less xp for having around a sidekick for which tey don't really care all that much. Much less of a problem for groups that use milestone xp or whatever that's called (for example, in most campaigns I play, I almost never count xp, cause I know that when the character whose player counts xp levels up, we all level up), but it would be a problem for groups where characters gain xp based on what encounters they are involved in/ what they kill/ etc.

Also, it allows you to use your sidekick for background tasks that can still be useful. For example, instead of bringing my expert sidekick into the dungeon we are going into, which would mean one extra character someone has to play during combat, I have the sidekick stay behind and investigate the motives of the noble who gave us the quest to go into the dungeon and recover his deceased wife's necklace (of doom!). If the sidekick powers up regardless of how present it is to combat encounters, that means that I have the freedom to utilize the sidekick however I please without being pressured by a desire to feed it xp. That means that the sidekick will be as much present to encounters as I really want it to be. It's cool to have a sidekick, but I would want it mostly for the rp and for whatever little utility or extra protection it can offer me. Having it eat away at the group's xp, or having a reason to have the sidekick be present in every single combat encounters, is a cost and a temptation that also leads to a cost, that I would not like to see associated with using a sidekick, cause I think it would make me enjoy it less.

You make a good argument from a gamist perspective, and I suppose that's probably why Mearls floated this version. I dislike it from a couple of perspectives, (1) it doesn't match existing precedent for Planar Ally wherein "a creature enlisted to join your group counts as a member of it, receiving a full share of Experience Points awarded," (2) the sidekick is apparently pulling XP from thin air, (3) you point out that having the sidekick advance no matter what makes it matter less how the player decides to use the sidekick, but I don't like having player decisions not matter.

Fundamentally, the dynamic I like for NPCs is, "If you take NPCs with you, they can be useful and maybe keep you alive, but they can also get killed. If they don't get killed, they get better at not getting killed."

I suppose if these UA rules are being written for games where getting killed isn't a real threat, it makes sense that the priority would be more on preventing on real-life players from objecting to the XP drain.

[Luccan]

They missed out on an opportunity by calling the spellcasting NPC class "Spellcaster" instead of "Adept".

Given they called it spellcaster, it makes me think of the Generic Classes from 3.5's UA book.

[dnd2016]

So if you pick a human soldier you can give him all the party's hand me down weapons, armor, etc...Thats sick

[DanyBallon]

What if players were encourage to donate a percentage of the XP they recive to a NPC XP pool which could be use to level up sidekicks?

Players that want their sidekick to keep up will need to invest a certain amount of XP from their own. It would be a new ressources to keep track. Maybe let sidekick to level up at half the XP needed for a PC, but they must stay at least two level below the PC level.

[NaughtyTiger]

What if players were encourage to donate a percentage of the XP they recive to a NPC EX pool which could be use to level up sidekicks?

Players that want their sidekick to keep up will need to invest a certain amount of XP from their own. It would be a new ressources to keep track. Maybe let sidekick to level up at half the XP needed for a PC, but they must stay at least two level below the PC level.

i like the donate XP to level a sidekick.



Gah, reading it does make me mad. the druid can pick up a CR1 beast that levels better than the beastmaster!
more HP, extra attacks earlier,ASI increases, improved critical, geez.

at this point, they are doing this explicitly to screw the beastmaster, right?

[intregus]

Anyone else notice that the mundane spellcaster gets more spells known than the sorcerer?

[Unoriginal]

Gah, reading it does make me mad. the druid can pick up a CR1 beast that levels better than the beastmaster!
more HP, extra attacks earlier,ASI increases, improved critical, geez.

at this point, they are doing this explicitly to screw the beastmaster, right?

Given that the Beastmaster can also pick up a CR 1 beast, no, they aren't.

[Asmotherion]

Do we really need new rules for this? i mean they could be built as regular characters imo without affecting game balance that much.

As for Animal companions they could advance in Barbarian Levels... Or Rogue depending on the animal.

For Monster NPC followers one could use their racial HD (as an effective character level) and add levels on top of that.

[Sigreid]

I like it. Though as an AD&D 1e veteran I wish they had called it Night of the Living Henchman.

[Rockphed]

They did not forget. You go to the sidekick's NPC statblock and add one dice of the relevant size.

That is a valid interpretation of the text, but I am unsure that it is the only interpretation. Were this second or fourth edition, I would agree with that interpretation. However, 5e has similar multiclassing to 3e, which implies that not all hit dice are the same size. Or at least that they don't have to be.

[Laird]

Given that the Beastmaster can also pick up a CR 1 beast, no, they aren't.

They sorta are though. The Beastmaster has to give up a subclass, and that still only let's it take a CR 1/4 creature.
Sidekicks anyone can get with no cost except for some roleplay and maybe creative thinking, so now it's better to pick a Gloom Stalker, Horizon Walker, Hunter or Monster Slayer ranger as opposed to a Beastmaster. However it should be noted that you could get a wolf companion and a direwolf sidekick and have 2 beast allies instead of one (you have to share the sidekick most likely though).

[Sigreid]

That is a valid interpretation of the text, but I am unsure that it is the only interpretation. Were this second or fourth edition, I would agree with that interpretation. However, 5e has similar multiclassing to 3e, which implies that not all hit dice are the same size. Or at least that they don't have to be.

Ok, away from the doc right now but I thought it was pretty clear that the base hit die size does not change

[JakOfAllTirades]

So "Warlock" sidekicks use the same casting rules as other arcane caster sidekicks?

That's very interesting.

It makes me wonder if the D&D 5E design team is considering a Warlock class re-design along those lines. Because I'd absolutely play a full-caster Warlock with a spellcasting progression like that; no Pact Magic, no Mystic Arana, and especially no weird rules on what I can or cannot up-cast. Consider me interested.

[Unoriginal]

That is a valid interpretation of the text, but I am unsure that it is the only interpretation. Were this second or fourth edition, I would agree with that interpretation. However, 5e has similar multiclassing to 3e, which implies that not all hit dice are the same size. Or at least that they don't have to be.

All the HDs for the NPCs are the same size, based on their size categories.

If you have another interpretation, could you share it, please? Because to me the one possibility that makes sense is "they stayed coherent with the NPC statblock and the NPC hit dice rules".


Ok, away from the doc right now but I thought it was pretty clear that the base hit die size does not change

It was.

[Tvtyrant]

Fixed leadership seems decent, the mage is probably too strong though. 9ths are 9ths, even if you strip down the subclass abilities.

[Pex]

Is it my imagination or besides not having metamagic is the Spellcaster Sidekick stronger than the Sorcerer? Could you see yourself wanting to play the Spellcaster Sidekick as a PC?

[ImperiousLeader]

I suppose if these UA rules are being written for games where getting killed isn't a real threat, it makes sense that the priority would be more on preventing on real-life players from objecting to the XP drain.

They're also this way because some DMs use a milestone leveling system and don't track XP. I don't, and I haven't had to as a player in my past few campaigns.

[strangebloke]

Overall, I like this UA, but it is pretty self-explanatory. I do think that its cleaner to just give the beast companion pet that the ranger wants as a boon or ally rather than as a class feature, since IMO there's no real way to make "I have a second party member" truly balanced and still have it feel right.


Fixed leadership seems decent, the mage is probably too strong though. 9ths are 9ths, even if you strip down the subclass abilities.
yes, I agree. The biggest part of a wizard's strengths aren't its class features, they're its spells, and the spellcaster has most of that.

If every player had the option to pick up a companion, it'd be pretty hard to argue against picking up the caster from an optimization perspective. Just having all those extra spells available is a great deal.

They're also this way because some DMs use a milestone leveling system and don't track XP. I don't, and I haven't had to as a player in my past few campaigns.

Yup. It's also just easier to manage, period, which is a design goal I can always get behind.

[CTurbo]

I love the idea of a sidekick but these seem to be overpowered. Especially the "Expert" and "Spellcaster" They give the expert an extra attack? and the spellcaster gets 8th and 9th level spells??? I think at best the spellcaster's maximum slot level should be half of a normal full caster.

[Misterwhisper]

So "Warlock" sidekicks use the same casting rules as other arcane caster sidekicks?

That's very interesting.

It makes me wonder if the D&D 5E design team is considering a Warlock class re-design along those lines. Because I'd absolutely play a full-caster Warlock with a spellcasting progression like that; no Pact Magic, no Mystic Arana, and especially no weird rules on what I can or cannot up-cast. Consider me interested.

It is not really so much as interesting and definitely not a sign of a redesign.

They just threw something together and made them generic caster instead of pact magic.

[Luccan]

Is it my imagination or besides not having metamagic is the Spellcaster Sidekick stronger than the Sorcerer? Could you see yourself wanting to play the Spellcaster Sidekick as a PC?

Honestly, it fills the generic Sorcerer subclass space with only a little adjustment. I'd certainly consider it, even as is (presumably cutting the skill proficiency down to 2 and giving you a d6 hit die).

[Eriol]

I echo what others have said about the # of spells known and sorcerers.

I also echo what others have said about Rangers: why the hell would you take Beastmaster, instead of gaining an animal sidekick? The benefits seem few and marginal, versus the AMAZING combat and roleplaying possibilities of ANY of the sidekick classes. Hell, it'd be really funny to take something with a high hit dice and give them caster abilities, but nasty hit dice. Lots of beasts at CR1 or under that have d10s.

So really broken from that perspective in a way, but fun.


Honestly though, I don't see why you'd do this over just either pulling an NPC stat block from the back of the MM (or other book) for short-term, and for long-term companions, just give them a class and do that. Barely less bookkeeping to do this (and possibly just as much) for less power.

[jaappleton]

So "Warlock" sidekicks use the same casting rules as other arcane caster sidekicks?

That's very interesting.

It makes me wonder if the D&D 5E design team is considering a Warlock class re-design along those lines. Because I'd absolutely play a full-caster Warlock with a spellcasting progression like that; no Pact Magic, no Mystic Arana, and especially no weird rules on what I can or cannot up-cast. Consider me interested.

A redesign of that magnitude would wreak havoc with how many Invocations work.

[VonDragon]

this ua immediately makes me think of 3.5's cohorts making this a heavy no in my game

[Corran]

(3) you point out that having the sidekick advance no matter what makes it matter less how the player decides to use the sidekick, but I don't like having player decisions not matter.

I don't like if player decisions are influenced by how xp is gained. Bringing the gain or lack of gain of xp into decision making sure adds to the decision making complexity (at least theoretically), but not in a way I personally enjoy. And the reason I don't enjoy it, is because I think that in practice (at the very least how I have experienced it), having player decisions be directly related to xp awards, usually is enough to make the decision for the players, or at the very least it makes other options (splitting, not participating in the dungeon crawl in order to do sth else) less appealing. Bring xp into the scale of decision making, influences it from a very meta point of view. Then again, I may see this way too much from a PC perspective (and even then, I realize that my opinion is a bit extreme, and there are drawbacks to such an approach if used by a player to have their character skip dangerous encounters for no other reason than not risking PC death), cause what you say here:

Fundamentally, the dynamic I like for NPCs is, "If you take NPCs with you, they can be useful and maybe keep you alive, but they can also get killed. If they don't get killed, they get better at not getting killed."
makes a lot of sense. As do your other points. And I would like to give some more thought before hastily answering them.


Edit:

Fixed leadership seems decent, the mage is probably too strong though. 9ths are 9ths, even if you strip down the subclass abilities.
Eh, at this point the sidekick has grown to be their own person. Or... the PC's are the sidekicks now! And the campaign was always the story of the sidekick!:smallsmile:

[BarneyBent]

Is it just me, or did Find Steed just get amazing?

Find Steed specifically says you share a language, and that when they die and you recast, it’s the same steed. That means your Warhorse can be a practically immortal full caster. Have it go Wizard, pick up Polymorph at level 7 and turn into whatever you want it to be. At level 17 it can True Polymorph itself into a an Adult Red or Gold Dragon!

[djreynolds]

I thought this was about monks doing sidekicks

[CTurbo]

Being able to speak a language is prerequisite for spellcaster sidekick



I'll take a Giant Eagle Spellcaster(Cleric) sidekick please and thank you lol


Oh and I can definitely see PC mount abuse from this. Think about all the CR1 and lower large beasts this opens up as a sidekick to ride on. Heck imagine a level 12 Warhorse "Warrior" sidekick with Plate armor and the Mobile feat.

Every party should have a pride of warrior Lion sidekicks/mounts to ride on lol

[jas61292]

With regard to the whole full casting issue, I think that's only a real issue if the DM gives you a sidekick that is almost as good as you. In which case they are not much of a side kick. On the other hand, if you pick them up at, say, level 6, then even if you do get all the way to 20, they will only ever be level 14 themselves. A big help, sure, but it's hardly like you get a back up full PC caster.

So I'm personally fine with it. But only if the DM actually battles them a sidekick and not an extra party member.

[Kaliayev]

I also echo what others have said about Rangers: why the hell would you take Beastmaster, instead of gaining an animal sidekick? The benefits seem few and marginal, versus the AMAZING combat and roleplaying possibilities of ANY of the sidekick classes. Hell, it'd be really funny to take something with a high hit dice and give them caster abilities, but nasty hit dice. Lots of beasts at CR1 or under that have d10s.

So really broken from that perspective in a way, but fun.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I see nothing that prevents a beast master from turning their companion into a sidekick. This UA actually strikes me as a massive buff to beast master. With said archetype, the ranger has a guaranteed friend that has CR less than or equal to one (i.e. a guaranteed sidekick). Other characters face a significant challenge in convincing a sidekick to follow them around on the dangerous adventures they might embark upon. A warrior companion would solve a lot of the problems that the beast conclave tried to address.

[Mercurias]

If I were DMing, I would probably rule to allow a war horse or other mount as a warrior side-kick for a Cavalier. Cavaliers in 5th ed basically have mount stuff for fluff, and a more durable horse with which they share a special bond could be a lot of fun Roleplay, particularly if the DM makes sure not to pull punches towards the horse.

I’d likely rule that a Paladin can either have an immortal steed they can resummon regularly OR they can have a mount that can be a sidekick, not both.

This could be fun when playing a noble character. Give ‘em a servant to order around. I’d just have the servant be something like -2 to the level of the party and warn the player not to go overboard with their toy.

[MeeposFire]

I would probably change the spellcaster to some sort of a 2/3 caster so it ends up with 6th level spells but give it maybe more access to additional cantrips and more uses of lower level spell slots. This way they can help out more with lower level abilities but the PCs need to bring the big guns.

Some fun ideas though. I think from some of the comments what they should do is to have two separate uses for them to gain levels either from gaining XP by what they do if you want that or what they already posted which helps for others.

I am sad to say I would really like to play as an expert since it natively gets extra attack, reliable talent, jack of all trades, and cunning action. Awesome for sure. Give it a subclass (bard and rogue based of course) and I think I am in!

Anybody else feel the same? Anyone else just want to play an expert?

[BarneyBent]

Being able to speak a language is prerequisite for spellcaster sidekick



I'll take a Giant Eagle Spellcaster(Cleric) sidekick please and thank you lol


Oh and I can definitely see PC mount abuse from this. Think about all the CR1 and lower large beasts this opens up as a sidekick to ride on. Heck imagine a level 12 Warhorse "Warrior" sidekick with Plate armor and the Mobile feat.

Every party should have a pride of warrior Lion sidekicks/mounts to ride on lol

On closer inspection, you need to be able to SPEAK the language, not just understand. So Giant Eagle and Find Steed are out. :/ Probably for the best haha. They can still be warriors though!

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I like this. My party and a couple parties I DM suffer fatalities sometimes. The sidekicks can be almost ready made replacements, if the party chooses. We do something sorta like this already.

[EggKookoo]

I would probably change the spellcaster to some sort of a 2/3 caster so it ends up with 6th level spells but give it maybe more access to additional cantrips and more uses of lower level spell slots. This way they can help out more with lower level abilities but the PCs need to bring the big guns.

I agree, they feel a tad powerful. Especially the spellcaster. I would consider simply level-capping them.

I don't see any verbiage that says you can have only one sidekick. Followers!

Also, can they multiclass?

[CTurbo]

On closer inspection, you need to be able to SPEAK the language, not just understand. So Giant Eagle and Find Steed are out. :/ Probably for the best haha. They can still be warriors though!

Giant Eagles CAN speak their own language. Giant Owls and Blink Dogs too. I believe those are the only 3 though.





On a side note, you could have a leveled up Zombie or Skeleton sidekick. That's pretty cool. Imagine a leveled up Zombie Warrior with all those Indomitable uses

[Potato_Priest]

Giant Eagles CAN speak their own language. Giant Owls and Blink Dogs too. I believe those are the only 3 though.


If I remember correctly, giant elk also have their own language.

[8wGremlin]

Modron/Trirone/Quadron; truesight 120
Vegepygmy who regenerate 5hp/round unless damaged by some things
Mephits

Pixies!
Quickling speed:120' attacks against have disadvantage, plus mutliattack (extra Attack)
Phantom Warrior; incoprooraial undead, multi attack, immunities loads!
Brass/Copper Dragon Wyrmlings

[CTurbo]

If I remember correctly, giant elk also have their own language.


Yes it does and it's huge which would be hilarious but it's CR2 so that's why I didn't mention it. Imagine it's Spiritual Guardians though lol

[Sigreid]

Those worried about the caster should consider that the wizard version has no provision at all for a spell book and the ability to prepare spells. All of them are spells known.

[MeeposFire]

Modron/Trirone/Quadron; truesight 120
Vegepygmy who regenerate 5hp/round unless damaged by some things
Mephits

Pixies!
Quickling speed:120' attacks against have disadvantage, plus mutliattack (extra Attack)
Phantom Warrior; incoprooraial undead, multi attack, immunities loads!
Brass/Copper Dragon Wyrmlings


Though remember on some of those you need to become friends. This is like the MLP of D&D because Friendship gives you magic (or an expert or a warrior). Some of those creatures would be hard to befriend though certainly not impossible and since whether something becomes a friend and wants to travel with the party goes through the DM the DM can decide if they want to deal with sidekicks that have these sort of abilities.

[Sigreid]

Also remember that unless you make the friend at level 1 and they become a sidekick, they will always be at least one level and probably several levels behind you.

[MaxWilson]

I don't like if player decisions are influenced by how xp is gained. Bringing the gain or lack of gain of xp into decision making sure adds to the decision making complexity (at least theoretically), but not in a way I personally enjoy. And the reason I don't enjoy it, is because I think that in practice (at the very least how I have experienced it), having player decisions be directly related to xp awards, usually is enough to make the decision for the players, or at the very least it makes other options (splitting, not participating in the dungeon crawl in order to do sth else) less appealing. Bring xp into the scale of decision making, influences it from a very meta point of view. Then again, I may see this way too much from a PC perspective

I am definitely thinking from a DM perspective, not a player perspective, because for me the entire function of awarding XP is to alter player behavior. I view it as my job to tempt players into doing interesting-but-unsafe things for the entertainment of everybody at the table, and offering XP is my preferred means of doing it. (Offering treasure, reputational gains, social status, secrets, etc. is possible too but not usually my first pick.)

If it weren't for the desire to affect player decisions, I'd just as soon run a game without XP entirely, probably GURPS. (GURPS has an XP equivalent but it is pretty decoupled from play and can be safely ignored.)

I understand from Gygax's writings that he felt the same way. Advancement through killing monsters *is* a gamist mechanic which isn't strictly realistic, but he felt it was worth the unrealism because of how it affects player behavior. I'm sure one of the grognards can dig up the appropriate quotes from AD&D 1.

[BarneyBent]

Giant Eagles CAN speak their own language. Giant Owls and Blink Dogs too. I believe those are the only 3 though.

On a side note, you could have a leveled up Zombie or Skeleton sidekick. That's pretty cool. Imagine a leveled up Zombie Warrior with all those Indomitable uses

Right you are, I misread their “unable to speak” as applying to all their languages! A nice DM might even allow a Giant Eagle as a Greater Steed.

Oooh, and Warlock Familiars just got a boost. Spellcasting Imp looks good. Familiars can’t take the attack action, but that doesn’t mean they can’t cast spells! I’ll take a tiny Imp pseudo-Bard thank you very much...

[strangebloke]

To those excited about optimizing this, remember that this is almost certainly going in the DMG as opposed to the PHB.

There's no leadership feat. This is pretty much a system for creating a boon.

[Luccan]

To those excited about optimizing this, remember that this is almost certainly going in the DMG as opposed to the PHB.

There's no leadership feat. This is pretty much a system for creating a boon.

Yeah, people seem to be assuming you get to pick your sidekick, which... no. I like the system, but this is clearly to help DMs keep their players favorite NPC allies relevant, not a free minion every player should expect.

[MeeposFire]

Yeah, people seem to be assuming you get to pick your sidekick, which... no. I like the system, but this is clearly to help DMs keep their players favorite NPC allies relevant, not a free minion every player should expect.

And remember it will not be your side kick unless you become friends with it. Not your ally and not a slave/minion/etc but a friend.

[MeeposFire]

Hmm I just realized that reliable talent in here has a changed wording that would appear to be an attempt to prevent the use of jack of all trades to work with it. I wonder if they have officially changed the rogue ability in the PHB at this time or does it use the original wording (which is why in the official rulings document has them working or at least it did before).

[Mr.Spastic]

I don't relly like this that much. It seems overly complex and unnecessary. It's also vague on what can become your sidekick. Like does a Animal Companion count? Or a Chainlock? Another thing that bothers me is that the sidekicks get abilities from multiple classes all wrapped up in one. The Expert really bothers me as feeling a bit too good. Spellcaster is annoying for the reasons others have stated like Warlocks and Sorcerers. Seriously though, why would I play a regular warlock if this was an option.

I don't think it's all bad, but I'll probably never run it. I can just give the sidekick regulare class levels.

I could see this being very fun if you had a whole party of Warlocks with Pact of the Chain. Seeing as they can't attack without your command they would all be Spellcasters or Experts. That could be fun. Absolutely crazy, but fun.

[jas61292]

Hmm I just realized that reliable talent in here has a changed wording that would appear to be an attempt to prevent the use of jack of all trades to work with it. I wonder if they have officially changed the rogue ability in the PHB at this time or does it use the original wording (which is why in the official rulings document has them working or at least it did before).

Perhaps, but I doubt they changed anything. After all, it's not just Reliable Talent that is different here. Experts don't get "Jack of All Trades." They get "Jack of Many Trades" which only works with skills, not all ability checks. So it does not surprise me that their other ability is also different from the one it is based off of.

[MeeposFire]

Perhaps, but I doubt they changed anything. After all, it's not just Reliable Talent that is different here. Experts don't get "Jack of All Trades." They get "Jack of Many Trades" which only works with skills, not all ability checks. So it does not surprise me that their other ability is also different from the one it is based off of.

Good catch I did not notice that. That is tricky since the names are so close and the abilities are close but are not the same. I should put in my feedback that they should use different names so that you do not assume that they are the same OR change them to be the same so that is not an issue.

Also for some of the people here I know we just want to look at the list of monsters/npcs and see what is CR1 and less and then check to see if they have cool abilities but remember that is only 1 aspect of the requirements needed to make a sidekick and I do think that having that creature as a friend is a harder requirement. For instance somebody brought up the vegipigmy and I do not believe that in most campaigns it would not be believable to make friends with one and the same goes with the quickening (though that one is more to it being such a jerk and chaotic in nature). I am not going to say impossible but honestly I think people are throwing around creatures with little concern on whether they can fit the second of two criteria.

[Kaliayev]

What are some of the neat pairing concepts that this UA has inspired in folks? On my end, I've got:

Eladrin bard with a Dryad lover
Dwarven barbarian with an albino dwarf spirit warrior blood brother
Tabaxi beast master ranger with a tressym sidekick/companion

[8wGremlin]

QUESTION: Would you play these classes as characters and not sidekicks?

[Luccan]

QUESTION: Would you play these classes as characters and not sidekicks?

As some have pointed out, it would be a bit boring and perhaps under powered, but not unplayable. I probably wouldn't in the case of Warrior and Expert, but Spellcaster could provide some interesting character choices.

[Potato_Priest]

QUESTION: Would you play these classes as characters and not sidekicks?

I’d enjoy playing a warrior rather than a fighter. While I’d miss out on some of the fighter stuff like action surge and subclasses (these are literally the only fighter class features you’d lose and actually miss, which goes to show how “great” fighters are), danger sense and advantage on initiative are pretty awesome, and I could start as a pc’s horse, which could be a lot of fun.

[SirThoreth]

I always wanted to do the 3.x Expert class as a PC, but my old group switched to 4E before I got the chance. I'd not mind trying my hand at any of the three, though I admit to liking the spellbook mechanic of the wizard over the spellcaster not having to prepare spells. I might even be willing to go old-school Vanceian with a spellbook when using the wizard spell list, and have to declare what I'm preparing for each spell slot per day, which would make for an interesting difference with the standard 5e wizard.

[Capac Amaru]

Seems like this would be cool to apply to familiars.

I disagree with a language being the requirement for expert though. I'd houserule that the language requirement only pertains to language based skills ie arcana, history, religion, medicine, deception and persuasion.

Animals and creatures without language should be capable of being experts at athletics, acrobatics, sleight of hand, stealth, investigation, nature, animal handling, insight, perception, survival, intimidation and performance.

A wizard might use a stealth expert raven familiar as a scout, for instance.

[SirThoreth]

I don't think any of the basic familiar have the ability to speak a full language, though. Even the raven just mimics sounds in 5e, which would rule out both expert and spellcaster as classes.

[Zalabim]

I like seeing this idea get some design attention, but honestly I'd just give the thing levels in Fighter/Thief/whatever like I've always done before. This UA is additional rules complexity with no extra value that I can see--the grey text says this UA is designed so you won't have to recalculate the sidekick's CR, but so what? Clearly this UA is violating all of the CR rules anyway (a 120 HP Dire Wolf with Extra Attack is no longer really CR 1), and nothing says you have to calculate CR for sidekicks in the first place, so this seems like an overly-complicated solution in search of a problem.

But I repeat that I'm glad to see this design space getting some attention, and I'm glad this UA was written.


I just don't get why I'd use this?

It takes 5 seconds to make up a low level NPC as it is and there are a bunch listed in various manuals. It doesn't solve whatever CR calculation problem they're talking about because the characters grow stronger...

I'm missing something
If you have an NPC ally with the party, you're supposed to include that ally for determining encounter difficulty. This makes the sidekick count as "just a PC of X level" which simplifies things for a DM trying to calculate it that way.

Plus, the wackiness of level-advancement is a turn off. I was expecting something like "the NPC gains a full share of XP" or maybe "the NPC gains a half-share of XP," but instead... the sidekick gains a level when you do, regardless of what it does in the adventure, seriously? Why?
So that the Sidekick doesn't level up faster than the players and catch up in levels. The DMG already says NPC allies that share in combat also get a full share of experience. They just don't do anything with it.

Of note: animated armor, scarecrow and lion are all CR 1. Dorothy is ready to storm the wizard's castle.
I love this.

I'm not sure if I like that as an option though. Species or Race has no relevance to HP for character levels, but it does for creature levels?.

I think an easy fix would be to just add HP based on the average rolls of the originating classes for the sidekick's classes:

Fighter uses 1d10
Rogue uses 1d8
Wizard uses 1d6

Which would translate to:

Warrior gets +6 per level
Expert gets +5 per level
Spellcaster gets +4 per level
I kinda like that they have to roll for hit points, actually. That's another way they're a little worse than PC classes.

With regard to the whole full casting issue, I think that's only a real issue if the DM gives you a sidekick that is almost as good as you. In which case they are not much of a side kick. On the other hand, if you pick them up at, say, level 6, then even if you do get all the way to 20, they will only ever be level 14 themselves. A big help, sure, but it's hardly like you get a back up full PC caster.

So I'm personally fine with it. But only if the DM actually battles them a sidekick and not an extra party member.
For a leveling example, if you gained a sidekick when you had 20,000 XP at level 6, by level 20 it'd be level 19 with 335,000 XP. Or at half that value, then it would be level 15 (which is what gaining 14 levels puts it at anyway), but the DMG currently says they get a full share of XP rather than half. It's easier to just level them up when their friend does than deal with the differing rates on the XP chart, and half xp rate would probably work out differently at different starting levels.

[Beechgnome]

Another factor in whether the sidekick is overpowered is their starting CR. A CR of 1 is like 4th level, not 1st level. (CR 1/4 is like 1st). So if you befriend a dire wolf as a 1st level druid, it may always outclass the martials in the party. So I'd be inclined as a DM to delay the levelling up until such time as the players has surpassed the creature's relative level.

[Unoriginal]

Another factor in whether the sidekick is overpowered is their starting CR. A CR of 1 is like 4th level, not 1st level. (CR 1/4 is like 1st). So if you befriend a dire wolf as a 1st level druid, it may always outclass the martials in the party. So I'd be inclined as a DM to delay the levelling up until such time as the players has surpassed the creature's relative level.

Actually, CR 1 not like 4th level, it's "able to fight 4 lvl 1 and be a Medium challenge for this fight only". Lvl 1 PCs are capable to fight 6 to 8 CR 1 in one day, CR 1 are only capable of fighting 4 lvl 1 once and won't be a very deadly threat for this fight.

Same with CR 1/4. Yes, a single goblin can pose a threat to a lvl 1 PC if they fought in 1vs1, but it's expected the PC will win and be in good enough shape to to fight 6-8 other goblins, with some rest.

Not that a CR 1 isn't strong compared to a lvl 1 character. Just not as much as you're suggesting.

[MaxWilson]

They're also this way because some DMs use a milestone leveling system and don't track XP. I don't, and I haven't had to as a player in my past few campaigns.

If that were the only concern you wouldn't need special rules. You'd just say it levels using the same rules as everyone else, in that case milestones.

[EggKookoo]

If one of the prereqs is you must be friends with the creature, how does that relate to Intelligence? My first thought is that there would be some minimum Int in order for a creature to comprehend friendship. I'm not expecting to be able to make a sidekick out of, say, a gray ooze. But then animal friendship requires the creature's Int to be below 4. So...

[Unoriginal]

If one of the prereqs is you must be friends with the creature, how does that relate to Intelligence? My first thought is that there would be some minimum Int in order for a creature to comprehend friendship. I'm not expecting to be able to make a sidekick out of, say, a gray ooze. But then animal friendship requires the creature's Int to be below 4. So...

As long as the creature is capable of understanding the existence of other creatures and to have positive feelings toward one of those creatures in particular, who reciprocates those feelings, I'd say it counts as friendship.

A Gray Ooze has no conception of other creatures, only of what's edible and what is not.

Interestingly, it probably means that Lizardfok can't be Sidekicks, as they are emotionless and don't form friendships with others, only cooperation for pragmatic reasonings and at best a protective habit toward those they judge vulnerable but still useful.

[Grey Watcher]

It's a minor quibble, easily houseruled away, but is anyone else annoyed that animals can't be Experts? What if I want the best bloodhound ever (Expertise on Perception, Search, and Survival) or a helper monkey (Athletics, Acrobatics, and Sleight of Hand)? Haven't you always wanted a monkey!?

[Zanthy1]

So one thing I notice ( and im sorry if others said it first, didn't want to read through all the 4 pages previous to this). The sidekick levels up with you, in that when you level up so does it. But that doesn't mean its level matches yours. If I am level 5 and pick up a sidekick of CR 1, they would get level of sidekick. So when I level to 6, the sidekick levels to 2. So ultimately the sidekick should always be a little behind the player, unless the DM gives you a sidekick at level 1.

[EggKookoo]

...only cooperation for pragmatic reasonings and at best a protective habit toward those they judge vulnerable but still useful.

In some circles that counts as "friendship." Where's the line between having a personal emotional empathetic bond and, say, professional or political friendship? In real life the former often emerges from the latter.

If I were to allow sidekicks in my campaign, I think I could easily be persuaded to count friendships of convenience as "friends." If the friendship of convenience ends, so does the sidekick status. Not sure what happens to the creature then, but it's also not clear what happens to a sidekick if their PC dies or if the friendship ends any other way.

[Azgeroth]

well, i think it out right murders the ranger BM. how about i just play another ranger, and be-friend a beasty... im thinking hunter ranger, with a bird friend.. we will need to hand-wave the language requirement as it should definately be an expert... or we just re-fluf a giant owl to be some other smaller bird..

as others have noted, the caster type is only comparative at the same level as a PC. so unless you are running a 1-3 person party, its either a super-generous, or short sighted DM who gives you a spell casting companion at level 1...

personally i would see this more as the 'followers' supplement, these are your henchfolk, holding down the fort and occasionally making small excursions in your name. they are the new blood to your adventuring party. NOT a sooped up familiar from level 1... unless your a ranger.. and its a beast... GO FOR THE EYES BOO!!! GO FOR TH EEEEEYYYESSS!!

[Misterwhisper]

I would play the Expert just as a normal class.

Compare it to a rogue:

Same HD I would assume
Is proficient in almost the same weapons but that can be covered by a race.
Same armor.
One extra tool.
One extra skill. (think about that for a second, if you still get backgrounds, a Half-elf rogue would start with 9 skills, and 3 tools.)
ANOTHER extra skill and tool at 13th level.
Same expertise at level 1 and 6, but gets 2 extra at 17th level.
Bonus action help action, that is kind of nice.
Same Cunning action.
Jack of many trades makes them even better at skills.
Same ASI, notice the extra at level 10 just like a rogue.
Extra Attack which I have always thought rogue should at least have a subclass for.
Same Evasion
Inspiring Help is crazy good, It is like bonus action better guidance, and is unlimited.
It even gets better late game.
Almost the same reliable talent, slightly better considering you get more skills than a rogue.
Same sharp mind
Same Stroke of Luck.

I would play that.

[Pelle]

If one of the prereqs is you must be friends with the creature, how does that relate to Intelligence? My first thought is that there would be some minimum Int in order for a creature to comprehend friendship. I'm not expecting to be able to make a sidekick out of, say, a gray ooze. But then animal friendship requires the creature's Int to be below 4. So...

Well, do you (as in your group) want to have a gray ooze sidekick? If so, use these rules for it.

[EggKookoo]

I would play the Expert just as a normal class.

Compare it to a rogue:

You don't mind the lack of Sneak Attack?

[Misterwhisper]

You don't mind the lack of Sneak Attack?

Not if I have extra attack to somewhat make up for it.

The massive bonuses of their group helping and other out of combat bonuses are enough to make up the difference to me.

I have noticed after playing 2 different Rogues to level 14+ and another to 11, that later in the game, their combat damage does not matter much, it is their skills and talents that make them great.

An expert could just take something that lets them attack with a bonus action, there are multiple choices, and just use cunning action or help as needed.

A rogue often has to use cunning action to be able to sneak attack, and their weapon choice is limited a good bit due to sneak attack requirements.
Ex. There is no way for them to sneak attack with a PAM weapon, but an expert can use a spear or quarterstaff.

They both could take CBE but a rogue still has to meet requirements for sneak attack, the expert just plain attacks.

Seems good enough to me.

[Unoriginal]

In some circles that counts as "friendship."

In some circles? Which ones? Like, the one in the movie "The Ring"?



Where's the line between having a personal emotional empathetic bond and, say, professional or political friendship? In real life the former often emerges from the latter.

The premise of the question is wrong. Professional or political friendships still require an empathetic bond, and Lizardfolk do not have professional or political friendships.

If you meant professional or political alliances, then the Lizardfolk can do it, but it will never develop into a friendship. Which still makes them unable to be Sidekicks.

But to answer your question, you answered it yourself: personal friendship emerges from professional or political friendship (which means you acknowledge there is a line) when people form a personal emotional empathetic bond with people they share professional or political friendships.



If I were to allow sidekicks in my campaign, I think I could easily be persuaded to count friendships of convenience as "friends."

But the whole point of the distinction (and of the airquotes you put around friends) is that friends of convenience aren't actual friends.



If the friendship of convenience ends, so does the sidekick status. Not sure what happens to the creature then, but it's also not clear what happens to a sidekick if their PC dies or if the friendship ends any other way.

Sidekick rules are for NPCs who stick with you through fat and thin, and are willing to risk life and limbs in an adventuring career alongside you.

If they're just NPCs who accompany the PCs for a bit before going back to their business, it's easier for a DM to keep a regular NPC statblock.


I would play the Expert just as a normal class.

Compare it to a rogue:

Same HD I would assume
Is proficient in almost the same weapons but that can be covered by a race.
Same armor.
One extra tool.
One extra skill. (think about that for a second, if you still get backgrounds, a Half-elf rogue would start with 9 skills, and 3 tools.)
ANOTHER extra skill and tool at 13th level.
Same expertise at level 1 and 6, but gets 2 extra at 17th level.
Bonus action help action, that is kind of nice.
Same Cunning action.
Jack of many trades makes them even better at skills.
Same ASI, notice the extra at level 10 just like a rogue.
Extra Attack which I have always thought rogue should at least have a subclass for.
Same Evasion
Inspiring Help is crazy good, It is like bonus action better guidance, and is unlimited.
It even gets better late game.
Almost the same reliable talent, slightly better considering you get more skills than a rogue.
Same sharp mind
Same Stroke of Luck.

I would play that.

Because they start as NPC statblocks, Sidekicks don't get the same racial bonuses as PCs. And Sidekicks don't get background.

Furthermore, you always have to roll for HPs instead of taking the default.


PC classes are calibrated to leave room for backgrounds and races, Sidekick classes are not. But Sidekick classes have to take the starting health of the NPC into account.



On ogrer topic, man, the Half-Ogre would make a pretty powerful Sidekick.

[EggKookoo]

well, i think it out right murders the ranger BM. how about i just play another ranger, and be-friend a beasty... im thinking hunter ranger, with a bird friend.. we will need to hand-wave the language requirement as it should definately be an expert... or we just re-fluf a giant owl to be some other smaller bird..

Nothing prevents you from having your beast and a sidekick. Of course, nothing in the sidekick rules limits the number of sidekicks a PC can have...

As some others have said, this is really less about "oh, I get a companion!" for the player, and more like a way for the DM to keep an interesting NPC relevant with the party over time. I would guess they're using the sidekick element to "hook" the creature to a PC as a way to regulate its power, and perhaps offload the gameplay of the creature to that player, but really it's just a leveling NPC.

If I were to use this, I would probably flavor it more that the creature is a sidekick to the entire party, rather than hanging off one PC. The sidekick's level would then be locked to APL (the sidekick gains a level whenever the APL goes up, or something like that). I would also limit the number of sidekicks in some way, like half of the average party proficiency bonus, so never more than three, but honestly that would depend on the size of the party.

I'm not sure if I'd even use this system or just go with a PC class. I suppose the sidekick classes are a little different, enough to make them feel not-quite-heroes, but they seem pretty potent to me.

[jaappleton]

What's stopping a Ranger Beastmaster from befriending a Halfling Warrior Sidekick, who rides the Beastmaster's Wolf companion?

Or the person with the Knight or Noble background from turning their followers into Sidekicks?

[Daphne]

What's stopping a Ranger Beastmaster from befriending a Halfling Warrior Sidekick, who rides the Beastmaster's Wolf companion?

Or the person with the Knight or Noble background from turning their followers into Sidekicks?

The Dungeon Master.

[Unoriginal]

What's stopping a Ranger Beastmaster from befriending a Halfling Warrior Sidekick, who rides the Beastmaster's Wolf companion?

Or the person with the Knight or Noble background from turning their followers into Sidekicks?

Nothing. Well, except it's the DM who decides who can become a Sidekick, the players don't "turn" NPCs into them.


Hell there's nothing stopping the Beastmaster's companion from befriending other animals, who could then become their sidekicks.

[Misterwhisper]

Nothing. Well, except it's the DM who decides who can become a Sidekick, the players don't "turn" NPCs into them.


Hell there's nothing stopping the Beastmaster's companion from befriending other animals, who could then become their sidekicks.

I just had this odd picture in my head of a Beastmaster Ranger waking up one morning to his horse having a town meeting of woodland creatures over by the campfire.

Also this could lead to an Animal Farm situation pretty fast.

[EggKookoo]

But the whole point of the distinction (and of the airquotes you put around friends) is that friends of convenience aren't actual friends.

Not to get into RAW pedantry but there's no definition for "actual friends" that I know of in the game. And a friendship of convenience is still friendship, just one that has an explicit condition. All friendships have conditions, though. Some are just more obvious than others.

(And speaking of pedantry, they're not air quotes if they're typed. They're... quotes.)

[jaappleton]

Nothing. Well, except it's the DM who decides who can become a Sidekick, the players don't "turn" NPCs into them.


Hell there's nothing stopping the Beastmaster's companion from befriending other animals, who could then become their sidekicks.

True. Though after seeing this, I'm much more inclined to simply be a non-Beastmaster Ranger and try to befriend an animal through Sidekicks than I am inclined to pick Beastmaster.

Or even better, an Ancients Paladin with an animal companion. Or I guess some sort of Squire, though a Paladin with a Bear is always cooler.

[strangebloke]

True. Though after seeing this, I'm much more inclined to simply be a non-Beastmaster Ranger and try to befriend an animal through Sidekicks than I am inclined to pick Beastmaster.

Or even better, an Ancients Paladin with an animal companion. Or I guess some sort of Squire, though a Paladin with a Bear is always cooler.

That's what I was saying too. Its better to just let the animal companion to be their own creature, rather than a class feature.

The issue with 'animal companion as a class feature' is that it limits how strong you can make it. If you make the animal companion essentially a sidekick, then its way too strong as a class feature. If you make it, as they did, essentially an extra HP pool and attack option, it might be balanced (sorta) but it doesn't feel right.

(though TBH 80% of the problem with beastmaster is that the paladin mount is better, and doesn't require a whole subclass.)

[Unoriginal]

Not to get into RAW pedantry but there's no definition for "actual friends" that I know of in the game. And a friendship of convenience is still friendship, just one that has an explicit condition. All friendships have conditions, though. Some are just more obvious than others.

(And speaking of pedantry, they're not air quotes if they're typed. They're... quotes.)

I'm not talking about RAW distinctions, I'm talking about language distinction. We distinguish friends of convenience and "friends" from friends for a reason.

If someone acts as if you were friends just because you have a car and can give them a lift, they're probably not your friend.

I'm not telling you how to run your game, though. Just saying it's more convenient to stick to standard NPCs statblocks unless the NPC cares enough to stick with the PCs for entire levels and get invested in the group.

[Raynor007]

It's a minor quibble, easily houseruled away, but is anyone else annoyed that animals can't be Experts? What if I want the best bloodhound ever (Expertise on Perception, Search, and Survival) or a helper monkey (Athletics, Acrobatics, and Sleight of Hand)? Haven't you always wanted a monkey!?

I thought the exact same thing. I know why they made it this way, but I figure as long as the circumstances make sense (limited skill/tool proficiences, not taking actions that a very well-trained animal wouldn't take, etc), there's no reason why I wouldn't allow an animal Expert. It's essentially limiting the character for roleplaying purposes, and I've never had a problem with my players doing that.

It might take a while, but one way around this in the RAW is the Awaken spell. Can anyone think of a reason why that wouldn't work?

Also, nice Barenaked Ladies reference.

[Unoriginal]

I just had this odd picture in my head of a Beastmaster Ranger waking up one morning to his horse having a town meeting of woodland creatures over by the campfire.

"So, we all agree: you guys take level in Experts or Spellcaster (Bard), and I'll get my human to guide us to Bremen."




Or even better, an Ancients Paladin with an animal companion. Or I guess some sort of Squire, though a Paladin with a Bear is always cooler.

As a Paladin you could have a Standard Bear-er.


Can anyone think of a reason why that wouldn't work?

Can't think of any, Awakened animals (and plants) work as long as their CR is within the range.

Though personally I'd rule it would require more befriending than the effect of Awaken provides.

[Raynor007]

Can't think of any, Awakened animals (and plants) work as long as their CR is within the range.

Though personally I'd rule it would require more befriending than the effect of Awaken provides.

So would I, per the description of the spell. It goes back to what the true definition of "friend" is: I wouldn't call anyone charmed by a PC their friend, because a true friend wouldn't need charm to be friendly. It certainly provides some fascinating Sidekick options though.

[EggKookoo]

I'm not talking about RAW distinctions, I'm talking about language distinction. We distinguish friends of convenience and "friends" from friends for a reason.

If someone acts as if you were friends just because you have a car and can give them a lift, they're probably not your friend.

Yeah, this is probably not a debate worth having. I just think there's fairly wide latitude in how people define friendship. I know people who are perfectly comfortable labeling someone a friend who is just consistently polite and attentive and spends time with them. I know other people who expect their friends to periodically display some level of self-sacrifice in order to maintain that status. In a game like D&D, a friend could just be anyone who's not actually hostile. It's very open to interpretation.

As a DM if I used this system, I would even use it for paid hirelings. Sure, they're only friendly (or... "friendly") for as long as they're being paid, but once the relationship ends, it ends, which would be true for friendships consisting of tight emotional bonds as well.


I'm not telling you how to run your game, though. Just saying it's more convenient to stick to standard NPCs statblocks unless the NPC cares enough to stick with the PCs for entire levels and get invested in the group.

Oh, of course. The sidekick thing is a way to make an NPC persistent.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Everybody: Now I might as well play a Sidekick Spellcaster instead of Sorcerer...

Me: Then why did you pick Sorcerer over Wizard in the first place?

[JakOfAllTirades]

A redesign of that magnitude would wreak havoc with how many Invocations work.

That's because some terrible invocations ALSO need to be redesigned.

[jaappleton]

That's because some terrible invocations ALSO need to be redesigned.

JoaT, I like to think as far as forum users go, we recognize one another. I have respect for you. Your posts are always insightful, and you've clearly demonstrated a large degree of understanding of 5E's design.

I hereby present to you my counter argument.

.....I got nothin'.

[Arkhios]

https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf

Honestly, I don't know what to make of this... The guard who joins your adventures levels up...like a really simple fighter? And your dog does too?

Cohorts are not a new thing. I'm glad they might see another coming someday.

[MaxWilson]

JoaT, I like to think as far as forum users go, we recognize one another. I have respect for you. Your posts are always insightful, and you've clearly demonstrated a large degree of understanding of 5E's design.

I hereby present to you my counter argument.

.....I got nothin'.

Okay, that was some pretty good comic timing. Nicely done.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For those comparing this to a BM's pet, remember this.

A BM's pet is an extension of the character. The character controls it and can give orders that the pet will obey to the best of its ability, without concern for life or limb.

A sidekick is an NPC, under the control of the DM. As your friend, you can make requests but you can't (or at least I can't find any implication in the UA that you can) give orders. If you tell him to do something suicidal, he can (but won't necessarily) say "no" and leave. And he goes on his turn and you don't control his actions, the DM does. He's a (weaker) party member in his own right, not a jumped-up class ability given creature shape. You also don't control what class he takes--the DM does, and should (in my eyes) take account of the NPC's personality instead of power-gaming.

Gaining a sidekick is also under the direct control of the DM. I'd disallow any summoned familiars, because they're not your friend, they're your bond servant.

As for me, this is very useful. My parties love gathering pets. One party has a pet Giant Lizard (named Private Eye Guana) that I'll retool from his ad-hoc pseudo barbarian levels (heavily modified for convenience and workability) to a Warrior. Another party has a familiar imp (a pact of convenience that may become friendship) who will probably take sidekick Expert levels as the party lacks a rogue. Another built an eye-bot that ended up getting a mechanical body. I statted it as a fighter, but that was a bit much. If I did it again, it would be a multiclass Spellcaster/Warrior (spellcaster before it got the body, warrior after).

[EggKookoo]

A sidekick is an NPC, under the control of the DM.

Maybe.

"In these rules, a sidekick is a creature who is your friend and who accompanies you on adventures. It’s essentially a second character you play. (The DM might decide to play it instead, or you could co-play it with other players at the table.)"

The DM playing it is one option. The idea that the sidekick is co-played is actually more intriguing to me. If I ever used one, I'd "hook" it to one PC in the narrative, but I'd have a different player run it, or rotate it through different players as they wished. Anyone but the actual friend PC player, so that player has someone to roleplay off of.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe.

"In these rules, a sidekick is a creature who is your friend and who accompanies you on adventures. It’s essentially a second character you play. (The DM might decide to play it instead, or you could co-play it with other players at the table.)"

The DM playing it is one option. The idea that the sidekick is co-played is actually more intriguing to me. If I ever used one, I'd "hook" it to one PC in the narrative, but I'd have a different player run it, or rotate it through different players as they wished. Anyone but the actual friend PC player, so that player has someone to roleplay off of.

I missed that. But I'd still say it's up to the DM to handle it and grant it in the first place. DMs that let it overshadow a player need to learn to DM better.

I'm going to play it exactly how I have been--I'll let the party (whichever it's bonded to or whoever else they say) direct its general actions but I may over-ride if they're pushing the limits. The more intelligent ones (the eye-bot if that game were still going and the imp) will have more personality, the lizard will be much more simple.

[Sigreid]

Maybe.

"In these rules, a sidekick is a creature who is your friend and who accompanies you on adventures. It’s essentially a second character you play. (The DM might decide to play it instead, or you could co-play it with other players at the table.)"

The DM playing it is one option. The idea that the sidekick is co-played is actually more intriguing to me. If I ever used one, I'd "hook" it to one PC in the narrative, but I'd have a different player run it, or rotate it through different players as they wished. Anyone but the actual friend PC player, so that player has someone to roleplay off of.

If multiple players have a sidekick it could be fun to let them control each other's sidekick.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

This would be a good time to take a look at the Loyalty score variant rule from DMG.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If multiple players have a sidekick it could be fun to let them control each other's sidekick.

This might work especially well for small parties (2 or 3 real players). I like it.

[EggKookoo]

If multiple players have a sidekick it could be fun to let them control each other's sidekick.

So this brings up an idea I've been thinking about but haven't actually played, which I stole wholesale from White Wolf's Wraith: The Oblivion (an underrated game from what I've read of the system, but probably played by a dozen people ever and I could never get a group). In Wraith, you play, well, a wraith. A ghost. You're dead, and you travel through the land of the living (the skinlands) in a very horrific setting, both psychological and physiological. But the fun idea is that each wraith has a shade, a kind if Id-based personality that's rolled up as a separate but simplified character. Each wraith's shade is played by another player at the table, and the shade is like a looming devil on your shoulder, constantly harping on your mistakes and trying to get under your ectoplasmic skin. Probably not great for table synergy but I loved the mechanic.

So I've been wanting to run a high-level 5e campaign (maybe start at 14th?) where each player has their main PC, but also rolls up a trainee (or, I guess, a sidekick with this system). The player rolls up their own sidekick, but someone else at the table plays it, and like round robin everyone is playing someone else's sidekick. The rule would be that the sidekick is rolled up at half the level of the main, which makes the sidekick a load but also gives each main a person to look out for. Also, with EXP working as it does, the sidekicks will close the gap over time.

If a main ever dies (it would be a harsh setting), the player takes over their created sidekick, assuming control of the character from the player who had been running it. The player also rolls up a new sidekick at half the level of their "new" main, and the process continues. If the players aren't cautious, this will result in a gradual decrease in APL, which is bad but at the same time could keep the same nominal party going indefinitely with no one hitting max level.

Of course this would only really work with real PC classes...

[Squeeq]

Sigreid I like the way you think! It reminds me of that Polaris game where people all play as aspects of one person and such. It also allows for someone with a cohort they know to have meaningful ingame banter, whether it's comic sniping or more heartfelt or etc. I'd DEFINITELY run a 2-3 person game where each person plays someone else's cohort. I think Follow does that too!

Otherwise, I like this. If I wanna estimate what someone can do while helping them or fighting against them and I don't have a monster stat block or they're mostly generic, I can just pick along this list and do the mental math for it. I feel like this could also be a good system for a RIVAL that keeps showing up, team-rocket style, to get in your way and mess with you, to sort of keep them levelling up at a similar pace to you. Additionally, as they state, very handy for "ok so I just want a REALLY tough standard orc" you can just hit it with 10 NPC levels instead of homebrewing a monster block or making a character sheet yourself. The meat of it is really the specific set of abilities that the classes gain on levels, to pace out a generic but still useful archetype, mixing things from different classes and archetypes to streamline it, and I think they did quite well for that, honestly!

...I do wanna go through monster blocks I have access to in order to evaluate them for potential -- that would be VERY long for this thread, but would it be impolite to make a SECOND thread about the UA, just to keep this one clean? I'm not too familiar with the etiquette here

[djreynolds]

Would the game allow me 7 dwarves?

Also for actions, seriously now, what if you just rolled percentile die.

00 to 80 is attack , 80 to 85 is retreat, etc.

So instead of the DM or you choosing actions, simply roll

[Luccan]

Would the game allow me 7 dwarves?

Also for actions, seriously now, what if you just rolled percentile die.

00 to 80 is attack , 80 to 85 is retreat, etc.

So instead of the DM or you choosing actions, simply roll

So, 5% of the time, no matter the odds, situation, or the character's level, they run away?

[Greywander]

It's a minor quibble, easily houseruled away, but is anyone else annoyed that animals can't be Experts? What if I want the best bloodhound ever (Expertise on Perception, Search, and Survival) or a helper monkey (Athletics, Acrobatics, and Sleight of Hand)? Haven't you always wanted a monkey!?
Huh, I missed the requirement for being able to speak at least one language. I did, however, notice the limiting of tool proficiencies for non-humanoid Experts. This seems odd to me, considering that there are many different creature types that are definitely capable of using tools. Just as an example, a chainlock with an imp familiar; if the imp took Expert levels, it would definitely be capable of using tools. Familiars are kind of a special case, though, since you can summon them in different forms. I think it would have made more sense to me to require hands or other appendage capable of using tools in order to gain tool proficiencies. A monkey or octopus, for example, would be able to use tools, and do so in real life.

Also, I think someone mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it might be that the intention of this UA is for those NPCs you have tagging along with the party. If you keep someone around because you like the character, but you don't want them to die as you wade into progressively more dangerous situations, giving them class levels can help a lot. I'm not sure that the PCs are intended to specifically seek out sidekicks, although that wouldn't stop me from trying to turn my mount, familiar, or pet into a sidekick.

[Unoriginal]

Sigreid I like the way you think! It reminds me of that Polaris game where people all play as aspects of one person and such. It also allows for someone with a cohort they know to have meaningful ingame banter, whether it's comic sniping or more heartfelt or etc. I'd DEFINITELY run a 2-3 person game where each person plays someone else's cohort. I think Follow does that too!

Otherwise, I like this. If I wanna estimate what someone can do while helping them or fighting against them and I don't have a monster stat block or they're mostly generic, I can just pick along this list and do the mental math for it. I feel like this could also be a good system for a RIVAL that keeps showing up, team-rocket style, to get in your way and mess with you, to sort of keep them levelling up at a similar pace to you. Additionally, as they state, very handy for "ok so I just want a REALLY tough standard orc" you can just hit it with 10 NPC levels instead of homebrewing a monster block or making a character sheet yourself. The meat of it is really the specific set of abilities that the classes gain on levels, to pace out a generic but still useful archetype, mixing things from different classes and archetypes to streamline it, and I think they did quite well for that, honestly!

...I do wanna go through monster blocks I have access to in order to evaluate them for potential -- that would be VERY long for this thread, but would it be impolite to make a SECOND thread about the UA, just to keep this one clean? I'm not too familiar with the etiquette here

Making a different thread about the UA isn't a problem because you'd be talking about a different topic than this one. "Evaluating monsters' Sidekick potential" isn't the same as "let's talk about this new UA in general".

You could also post it here if you want, though.

[Slayn82]

It's a good UA, but I think some kind of mentoring & training rules to use on downtime activities should have also been introduced.

Something like a high level character training a lower level up to a certain point, 4 or 5 levels lower than himself, one level up per downtime, using a certain amount of resources. After that point, either the apprentice goes by himself to gain experience, or he stagnates, passively following his master.

[JakOfAllTirades]

JoaT, I like to think as far as forum users go, we recognize one another. I have respect for you. Your posts are always insightful, and you've clearly demonstrated a large degree of understanding of 5E's design.

I hereby present to you my counter argument.

.....I got nothin'.

I am not worthy! ROFLMAO

[Chaosmancer]

I'm aware that getting the sidekick is a DM choice, but afterwards there really isn't a limit.

I mean sure, you can't beat and abuse them, but most parties aren't that psychotic anyways and unless the sidekick is super sensitive it would be hard for the PCs to lose access to them after they join the party. After all, they liked you enough to travel to distant lands and risk their lives with you, that's a pretty deep bond already.

And frankly, I don't think most DMs would run the sidekicks. I had a game like that. It would have been a pain if I didn't offload running those characters to the players while I ran the fight.

So, I think it practice this is going to represent a huge boost in power for various parties.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm aware that getting the sidekick is a DM choice, but afterwards there really isn't a limit.

I mean sure, you can't beat and abuse them, but most parties aren't that psychotic anyways and unless the sidekick is super sensitive it would be hard for the PCs to lose access to them after they join the party. After all, they liked you enough to travel to distant lands and risk their lives with you, that's a pretty deep bond already.

And frankly, I don't think most DMs would run the sidekicks. I had a game like that. It would have been a pain if I didn't offload running those characters to the players while I ran the fight.

So, I think it practice this is going to represent a huge boost in power for various parties.

I have two sidekick-worthy characters in my 2 groups. In either case, if they try to get the creature to do something it's not willing to do, it has a good chance of leaving. If the DM is already willing to let them have "pets", then the main part of the power boost (the additional action economy) has already occurred.

For me, this UA streamlines a process I was already doing. It also helps me keep the levels in bound and balance encounters better (instead of trying to switch between CR and level for XP thresholds, I can just use level across the board). So it's win-win for me.

[Sception]

I dont see why these should be limited to "friends" or sidekicks. It seems like simplified npc classes that can be added to existing monster/npc blocks should just be a thing to start, whether for cohort style allies or customizing antagonists. The restrictions and rules for levelling seem like the least thought out and most likely to be fudged anyway part of this, though yeah, some of the abilities of the expert and caster seem a touch excessive as well.

[Unoriginal]

I dont see why these should be limited to "friends" or sidekicks. It seems like simplified npc classes that can be added to existing monster/npc blocks should just be a thing to start, whether for cohort style allies or customizing antagonists.

Those classes are to make NPCs that go along the PCs on adventures and progress during them to be easy to use. They serve no purpose for customizing antagonists, because antagonists can be tweaked however you want without having to bother with questions like "can they keep with the group through an adventuring day?"

[Sception]

So can friendly npcs.

EDIT, and the restrictions on only applying these rules to low cr npcs, and only starting to level after meeting the party, mean that "sidekicks" you dont meet until later levels dont function at all under these rules anyway.

[Unoriginal]

So can friendly npcs.

What are you talking about? Yes, you can tweak friendly NPCs. Can you have low CR NCPs keep up with the PCs through several aventures and levels progression? Sure, you can, but this UA make it easier.



EDIT, and the restrictions on only applying these rules to low cr npcs, and only starting to level after meeting the party, mean that "sidekicks" you dont meet until later levels dont function at all under these rules anyway.

What are you talking about? Yes, those sidekicks functions adequately under these rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I dont see why these should be limited to "friends" or sidekicks. It seems like simplified npc classes that can be added to existing monster/npc blocks should just be a thing to start, whether for cohort style allies or customizing antagonists. The restrictions and rules for levelling seem like the least thought out and most likely to be fudged anyway part of this, though yeah, some of the abilities of the expert and caster seem a touch excessive as well.

The big thing that comes to mind is that non-cohort NPCs play a completely different role in the game than do PCs or cohort-NPCs and thus the needs/design must differ. Terminology: "Monster" == "non cohort NPC".

Two big areas:

Screen Time: Even the most pesky recurring antagonist only spends a few scenes on-camera (as a % of the total screen time). And most monsters exist on-camera only for a single scene. Cohort NPCs and PCs are definitionally always on camera. This means that PC-style characters need to be built for the long haul, while monsters do not. They only exist mechanically for the brief time they're on screen. Narratively they still exist the rest of the time, but since the whole fictional world doesn't use the mechanics for the off-camera resolution of tasks, that's a moot point.

Player-to-Creature Ratio: PC-style creatures match one-to-one (or close) to players. And generally the same player plays that same creature session after session. Monsters are played (at least in 5e's design) more like dozens to one per scene. This means that just for the sake of DM sanity, monsters need to be streamlined tremendously compared to the more baroque player characters. Note that most monsters don't have Bonus actions to take. Even the dual-wielding ones just use Multiattack instead. These cohorts, while simplified relative to PCs, are still way more complex than NPC stat blocks, with correspondingly greater DM overhead. As a DM, running enough of these to properly challenge the PCs would be brutal on my sanity. And 5e does not work well in the "one big monster vs a party" regime as a daily diet.

So basically monsters and PCs are complementary. Each has a role the other doesn't and so must be designed differently. Both are vital to the game, just different.

[Sception]

If your 15th level party makes friends with a new henchman and the dm doesnt fudge that level up in advance, then that henchman isn't really going to be helping out on their 15th level adventures and will mostly just get splatted. If the dm wants to introduce an npc as a potential sidekick to such a high l evel party, wouldnt it make more sense to give that npc a few hench levels before meeting them? But then you're giving henchmen levels to not-already-henchmen npcs.

And, yes, these npc classes provide an easier framework than pure ad-lib for adjusting friendly npcs, but the exact same thing could be said for adjusting non-friendly npcs.

As for the complecity issues, there are times when an npc's off-screen actions and resource uses matter (eg, a behind the scenes spellcaster who can use spells to hife from the party or manipulate other npcs, but then has less resources ehen the party does confront them). Additionall, there is some obvious middle ground between "encounter against an entire group of leveled enemy npcs" and "encounter against one unsupported leveled enemy npc".

[Unoriginal]

If your 15th level party makes friends with a new henchman and the dm doesnt fudge that level up in advance, then that henchman isn't really going to be helping out on their 15th level adventures and will mostly just get splatted. If the dm wants to introduce an npc as a potential sidekick to such a high l evel party, wouldnt it make more sense to give that npc a few hench levels before meeting them?

Or your could add the levels after the PCs expressed wanting this NPC to travel with them.



And, yes, these npc classes provide an easier framework than pure ad-lib for adjusting friendly npcs, but the exact same thing could be said for adjusting non-friendly npcs.

No, it couldn't, because those rules do not help with the roles non-friendly NPCs have.

It's useless to go through the whole "alright this one is a warrior lvl 7 that means they get 7 supplementary HDs and the proficiency bonus to attack, plus Danger Sense..." or "alright this one is an expert lvl 4, they have X number of tool and skill proficiencies" when you can just give the NPCs the desired increase in HDs/attack bonus, abilities, or proficiencies.

The Sidekicks grow with the group and live through the adventuring day with them, which is what those rules are for, non-friendly NPCs don't do that.

I mean, I suppose you could have a "meet the rival at lvl X and then have them grow at the same rate as the PCs" thing, but that's a rather specific case.

[Osrogue]

I don't see how you would. In order for your sidekick to level up in the spellcaster class, it needs to be able to speak a language from its stat block. What this does mean, though, is pact of the chain warlocks can level up their Imps, Quasits, or Sprites (but not Pseudodragons) as either spellcasters (your choice of spell list!) or experts. That opens up a lot of cool options.

Awaken is a PHB spell.

[JackPhoenix]

Awaken is a PHB spell.

And it doesn't work on normal familiars, as those aren't beasts or plants. Neither does it work on paladin steeds, as those have Int 6.

[Osrogue]

And it doesn't work on normal familiars, as those aren't beasts or plants. Neither does it work on paladin steeds, as those have Int 6.

My original post was regarding a direwolf spellcasters using warlock spells. It would get -2 to everything due to its terrible charisma anyway, but that wasn’t really the point. I just thought it was neat that if you’re willing to play something suboptimal, there are a lot of monsters in the MM that could potentially see use in play.

[Sception]

I mean, I suppose you could have a "meet the rival at lvl X and then have them grow at the same rate as the PCs" thing, but that's a rather specific case.

A rather specific case, but is it really that unusual? This seems to apply to at least one npc in near about every game I've ever run or played in. Maybe my experience is just way off base, but really, now many games that aren't just pre-packaged dungeon delves don't include a recurring, semi-antagonistic rival anti-party, or at least one player who wrote a personal rival into their backstory with the expectation or at least hope that said rival will be a recurring figure that grows with their character, rather than a one & done monster of the week?

Even for a more traditional villain, as much as having a pre-set story can tell you what abilities to ad-lib onto an npc rival or antagonist, the reverse can often be just as helpful. Your players just threw you a curve ball and jumped the narrative rails, and now you're scrambling to figure out how your villain responds? Having a set list of things they can and cannot do can help you decide on what happens next, even if the antagonist doesn't happen to be "on screen" in that moment.


I'm not looking to return to the 3e days when every single enemy creature had to be built on basically the same rules as PCs. Most npcs absolutely do not need that level of complexity or progression, I absolutely agree. But enough do that it seems a framework like this - significantly simpler and more streamlined than an actual pc class, but more so than a monster template and more structured than free-form ad libbing - seems like a worthwhile tool to have available.

[8wGremlin]

Doesn't the Knight background give you some retainers, surely they could be your friend and speak a language?
#justspitballing

[Unoriginal]

A rather specific case, but is it really that unusual? This seems to apply to at least one npc in near about every game I've ever run or played in. Maybe my experience is just way off base, but really, now many games that aren't just pre-packaged dungeon delves don't include a recurring, semi-antagonistic rival anti-party, or at least one player who wrote a personal rival into their backstory with the expectation or at least hope that said rival will be a recurring figure that grows with their character, rather than a one & done monster of the week?

Well I can't speak for others, but in eleven years of roleplaying game through plenty of systems, I've never seen that happen. The closest thing was "PC has a grudge against a specific underling of the BBEG".

Not that I'm saying it's rare to have this happen or that my experience is anything but anecdotal.



Even for a more traditional villain, as much as having a pre-set story can tell you what abilities to ad-lib onto an npc rival or antagonist, the reverse can often be just as helpful. Your players just threw you a curve ball and jumped the narrative rails, and now you're scrambling to figure out how your villain responds? Having a set list of things they can and cannot do can help you decide on what happens next, even if the antagonist doesn't happen to be "on screen" in that moment.

Well, that would be covered by the villain's stablock, henchmen, special means, and generally what you wrote about their operations and their personality. Not sure what those classes in particular would affect, here.




I'm not looking to return to the 3e days when every single enemy creature had to be built on basically the same rules as PCs. Most npcs absolutely do not need that level of complexity or progression, I absolutely agree. But enough do that it seems a framework like this - significantly simpler and more streamlined than an actual pc class, but more so than a monster template and more structured than free-form ad libbing - seems like a worthwhile tool to have available.

Oh, I totally agree that it's a worthwhile tool to have available, but I think we disagree slightly on which work the tool is best suited for.

I at least would not suggest to use this UA rules to build antagonists, unless they were the kind of recurring ones that the PCs will fight at different points of the campaign. But then again I never suggest to use classes for antagonists, due how the HP/damage ratio works for classes compared to MM monsters.

[MaxWilson]

And it doesn't work on normal familiars, as those aren't beasts or plants. Neither does it work on paladin steeds, as those have Int 6.

Unless you Feeblemind them first!

[Luccan]

Doesn't the Knight background give you some retainers, surely they could be your friend and speak a language?
#justspitballing

I think they're specifically forbidden from combat, but I suppose an expert or spellcaster could provide utility without combat.

[Clistenes]

Is it just me, or did Find Steed just get amazing?

Find Steed specifically says you share a language, and that when they die and you recast, it’s the same steed. That means your Warhorse can be a practically immortal full caster. Have it go Wizard, pick up Polymorph at level 7 and turn into whatever you want it to be. At level 17 it can True Polymorph itself into a an Adult Red or Gold Dragon!

I feel conflicted...

On one hand, I can't see any reason for a Paladin, Wizard or Chain Pact Warlock to not turn their Special Mount or Homunculus or Familiar into a sidekick, if allowed... This is an unfair power upgrade for those classes...

On the other hand, if a mundane pet mastiff can gain levels, how come your Celestial Dire Wolf special mount or your Chain Pact Imp familiar or Homunculus can't do the same? They are smarter and more special than a regular dog!

[EggKookoo]

Well I can't speak for others, but in eleven years of roleplaying game through plenty of systems, I've never seen that happen. The closest thing was "PC has a grudge against a specific underling of the BBEG".

Not that I'm saying it's rare to have this happen or that my experience is anything but anecdotal.

I frequently have recurring villains and anti-parties. My players get a kick out of it, especially when they eventually kick the anti-party's butts. Or when the recurring villain shows up once again. The villain especially allows me a lot of freedom. He can be ridiculously OP at first, and every time he reappears the party is a bit more effective against him, until they naturally reach the point where they can take him out. It's very satisfying.

[Doug Lampert]

I frequently have recurring villains and anti-parties. My players get a kick out of it, especially when they eventually kick the anti-party's butts. Or when the recurring villain shows up once again. The villain especially allows me a lot of freedom. He can be ridiculously OP at first, and every time he reappears the party is a bit more effective against him, until they naturally reach the point where they can take him out. It's very satisfying.

I do the same all the time. Such villains never advance at anything like as fast as the party, they advance much slower so that "He can be ridiculously OP at first, and every time he reappears the party is a bit more effective against him, until they naturally reach the point where they can take him out. It's very satisfying."

Which means that the recurring villain has much less need of a regular advancement rule-set.

If the PCs gain a cohort at level 3, he'll need to advance 17 times if they play to 20 and he keeps up. He'll get almost as much screen-time as the PCs, so every level of that needs to be fairly well modeled, with growth that stays in bounds for a PC companion and defined abilities that are useful for a follower and in line with his level. If I wing it, that's 17 chances to get it wrong, and given the screen time and the fact that someone else runs him in combat, some complexity is fine and the players will know if I screw up.

If the PCs gain a nasty recurring rival at level 3, he'll be maybe CR 8 or so, and they'll catch up and kill or neutralize him at level 13 or so, meeting him maybe 4 times across that time. I maybe need builds at maybe CR 8, 11, and 14 to make him work, only need one of those when he's introduced, and if I over or undershoot there's no long term problem, they beat him a bit early, or he drives them off or he gets away again and they beat him in another 2-3 levels.

And in any case, the PCs will never know exactly what level he is, or exactly what abilities are written on his sheet (unless they convert him to an ally, which has happened). So it doesn't matter if I over or undershoot or if the progression is a bit uneven. They don't know exactly how fast he's advancing after all.

Basically, even for a recurring villain, these rules are overkill in terms of complexity, and they don't produce the correct abilities, since my Evil Emperor of the Undead isn't just a spell-caster, he's got special undead creation and control powers. My evil assassin isn't a rogue that traded sneak attack for extra attack and a better help action, quite the contrary, he's got an extra-good sneak attack and never helps anyone else.

[Unoriginal]

I frequently have recurring villains and anti-parties. My players get a kick out of it, especially when they eventually kick the anti-party's butts. Or when the recurring villain shows up once again. The villain especially allows me a lot of freedom. He can be ridiculously OP at first, and every time he reappears the party is a bit more effective against him, until they naturally reach the point where they can take him out. It's very satisfying.

I've had and seen recurring villains, yes, but no recurring villains growing at the same time as the party like the Sidekick rules allow.

As for anti-party situations, they generally weren't recurring, or at least not following-the-party-in-term-of-power.


I do the same all the time. Such villains never advance at anything like as fast as the party, they advance much slower so that "He can be ridiculously OP at first, and every time he reappears the party is a bit more effective against him, until they naturally reach the point where they can take him out. It's very satisfying."

Which means that the recurring villain has much less need of a regular advancement rule-set.

If the PCs gain a cohort at level 3, he'll need to advance 17 times if they play to 20 and he keeps up. He'll get almost as much screen-time as the PCs, so every level of that needs to be fairly well modeled, with growth that stays in bounds for a PC companion and defined abilities that are useful for a follower and in line with his level. If I wing it, that's 17 chances to get it wrong, and given the screen time and the fact that someone else runs him in combat, some complexity is fine and the players will know if I screw up.

If the PCs gain a nasty recurring rival at level 3, he'll be maybe CR 8 or so, and they'll catch up and kill or neutralize him at level 13 or so, meeting him maybe 4 times across that time. I maybe need builds at maybe CR 8, 11, and 14 to make him work, only need one of those when he's introduced, and if I over or undershoot there's no long term problem, they beat him a bit early, or he drives them off or he gets away again and they beat him in another 2-3 levels.

And in any case, the PCs will never know exactly what level he is, or exactly what abilities are written on his sheet (unless they convert him to an ally, which has happened). So it doesn't matter if I over or undershoot or if the progression is a bit uneven. They don't know exactly how fast he's advancing after all.

Basically, even for a recurring villain, these rules are overkill in terms of complexity, and they don't produce the correct abilities, since my Evil Emperor of the Undead isn't just a spell-caster, he's got special undead creation and control powers. My evil assassin isn't a rogue that traded sneak attack for extra attack and a better help action, quite the contrary, he's got an extra-good sneak attack and never helps anyone else.

Good points all over.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

On a side note (get it?), I think it would be fun/funny to play a Sidekick class as a PC and make your "Sidekick" a player class. So maybe you're a squire for a fierce knight and sometimes he travels with your party, but other times he leaves you alone to test you and see if you're ready to make it as a knight yourself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On a side note (get it?), I think it would be fun/funny to play a Sidekick class as a PC and make your "Sidekick" a player class. So maybe you're a squire for a fierce knight and sometimes he travels with your party, but other times he leaves you alone to test you and see if you're ready to make it as a knight yourself.

Or do a pseudo-troupe game, where each player has a "main" PC and one or more sidekicks. Sometimes you'd adventure with the PCs, sometimes with the sidekicks (or a mixed group). That'd work for a more episodic, fixed-base game where each PC had different concerns but were friends.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Or do a pseudo-troupe game, where each player has a "main" PC and one or more sidekicks. Sometimes you'd adventure with the PCs, sometimes with the sidekicks (or a mixed group). That'd work for a more episodic, fixed-base game where each PC had different concerns but were friends.

This could also be a fantastic way to keep the same party of characters but do a rotating DM schedule. It would make much more sense than, "Jugo is gone this week to see his ailing grandmother (but really it's just John's turn to DM)."

[noob]

So can a soothsaying dog get levels in Spellcaster:

The sidekick
might be a hedge
wizard,
a priest,
a soothsayer,
a spell wielding
performer, or a person with magic in their veins.
does it means that a dog which is constantly worried and express it can take levels into spellcaster?
I just did read the dog statblock and it does not mentions the fact dogs can bark nor any of the ways dogs can express themselves so I guess it means dogs does not have languages in their stat block..


Everybody: Now I might as well play a Sidekick Spellcaster instead of Sorcerer...

Me: Then why did you pick Sorcerer over Wizard in the first place?
It is due to something called vancian magic allergy
Some people can not breath and die while playing a vancian spellcaster.
It is still a better fate than playing a truenamer.
However you can not play a truenamer in 5e(that would be incredibly hard to play since truenamer are based on beating checks which grows of two points for each level they gain)

[Arkhios]

We have a sorcerer in our group whose player has decided to step down because of personal reasons, but she has some very major plot items and a thought crossed my mind when I saw this UA. What if the sorcerer would continue as a sidekick? She was even made with point-buy so she shouldn't be overpowered one bit either.

I proposed this to our DM, and I was a bit sad he didn't like it. I find it difficult to understand why.

[Clistenes]

Or do a pseudo-troupe game, where each player has a "main" PC and one or more sidekicks. Sometimes you'd adventure with the PCs, sometimes with the sidekicks (or a mixed group). That'd work for a more episodic, fixed-base game where each PC had different concerns but were friends.

Players characters, humanoid Sidekicks, beast Sidekicks, Pixie Sidekick, Paladin's Special Mount, Beastmaster Ranger's Animal Companion, Wizard's Familiar, NPC Pseudodragon Familiar, Chain Pact Familiar Imp, Homunculi, Golems, Shield Guardians, Simulacra...

Yep, you could get quite a troupe. It would become more a bother than an advantage over time, though... I mean, just moving around all that... you would have to buy your own ship, hire your own caravan...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Players characters, humanoid Sidekicks, beast Sidekicks, Pixie Sidekick, Paladin's Special Mount, Beastmaster Ranger's Animal Companion, Wizard's Familiar, NPC Pseudodragon Familiar, Chain Pact Familiar Imp, Homunculi, Golems, Shield Guardians, Simulacra...

Yep, you could get quite a troupe. It would become more a bother than an advantage over time, though... I mean, just moving around all that... you would have to buy your own ship, hire your own caravan...

True. If I were doing such a game, it would have sharp limits on the number of active characters. Each player gets his own character (PC or sidekick) plus maybe a "pet" (familiar or beast companion). And if so, I'd put limits on summonings.

But then I'm a stickler for fast moving combat, so...

[Lonely Tylenol]

This is the second UA in as many months where a subsystem I’ve spent a lot of time fine-tuning and spreadsheeting became a UA release, right on the heels of the game that system was to be implemented.

But... Honestly, I kind of like this one. Maybe I’ll just use it instead.

[Clistenes]

As I said earlier, I am concerned that this could become a headache for DMs... I can see every Paladin, Beastmaster Ranger, Wizard, Chain Pact Warlock and Bard whining to be allowed to turn their Special Mount, Animal Companion, Familiar and Homunculus into a Sidekick, and the rest of the party becoming grumpy because that's unfair for the rest...

[jas61292]

As I said earlier, I am concerned that this could become a headache for DMs... I can see every Paladin, Beastmaster Ranger, Wizard, Chain Pact Warlock and Bard whining to be allowed to turn their Special Mount, Animal Companion, Familiar and Homunculus into a Sidekick, and the rest of the party becoming grumpy because that's unfair for the rest...

If this material ever sees any sort of official release, it should absolutely 100% be in a book or section of a book that is clearly for DMs. And it should reinforce that in the section multiple times. Better yet, it should probably outright state that these rules are not to be applied to any creature that exists due to a spell or class feature. It should be for NPC allies the party picks up, not for boosting existing aspects of classes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If this material ever sees any sort of official release, it should absolutely 100% be in a book or section of a book that is clearly for DMs. And it should reinforce that in the section multiple times. Better yet, it should probably outright state that these rules are not to be applied to any creature that exists due to a spell or class feature. It should be for NPC allies the party picks up, not for boosting existing aspects of classes.

Agreed. Any creature the PC has total, direct control over due to a spell or class feature cannot become a sidekick in my book. Especially if they're resummonable.

[Sigreid]

Agreed. Any creature the PC has total, direct control over due to a spell or class feature cannot become a sidekick in my book. Especially if they're resummonable.

I'd been assuming this whole time that it would have to be used on something that you had an emotional and not magical bond with (though I suppose you could have an emotional bond with your class feature creature, the core is the magical one). This does mean, however, you could perhaps have your BM ranger have his wolf companion that he acts as one with due to their bond, and his companion's mate who accepts him as pact alpha but is still a wild animal.

[Chaosmancer]

So, this might be a more general question but it could apply to the Expert as well.

If they use their bonus action to help an ally, say with an attack, could they use their action to assist a different ally in attacking the same creature?

[Unoriginal]

So, this might be a more general question but it could apply to the Expert as well.

If they use their bonus action to help an ally, say with an attack, could they use their action to assist a different ally in attacking the same creature?

I see nothing against it. As long as the other requirements are respected, it would work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see nothing against it. As long as the other requirements are respected, it would work.

Agreed. And I'm in favor of things that help NPCs make PCs look better instead of hogging the spotlight. Dual help lets two PCs be more successful.

[Coidzor]

As I said earlier, I am concerned that this could become a headache for DMs... I can see every Paladin, Beastmaster Ranger, Wizard, Chain Pact Warlock and Bard whining to be allowed to turn their Special Mount, Animal Companion, Familiar and Homunculus into a Sidekick, and the rest of the party becoming grumpy because that's unfair for the rest...

Frankly that's needlessly pessimistic and alarmist, and that's without even getting into the thorny issue of being insulting towards people who are interested in having problematic or neglected areas of such companions addressed.


If your 15th level party makes friends with a new henchman and the dm doesnt fudge that level up in advance, then that henchman isn't really going to be helping out on their 15th level adventures and will mostly just get splatted. If the dm wants to introduce an npc as a potential sidekick to such a high l evel party, wouldnt it make more sense to give that npc a few hench levels before meeting them? But then you're giving henchmen levels to not-already-henchmen npcs.

A character that has a decent level of survivability and ability to contribute would make sense, but one glaring oversight with this UA is that what they've made does not account for that at all.


Doesn't the Knight background give you some retainers, surely they could be your friend and speak a language?
#justspitballing

I must admit, I've been waiting for the unmitigated vitriol people seem to have for the idea of having a squire that isn't completely and utterly useless to rear its head again in light of this UA.

[Chinchilla127]

In my opinion, there is a lack of half caster options for it but that can be easily fixed by house ruling that a warrior with a 13 in Charisma or Wisdom has the option of cast using the rangers spell casting chart as a base and choosing to use either the ranger or paladin spell list. All this being at the DM's digression so that not every warrior sidekick is casting spells left and right.

[Misterwhisper]

I have played 2 different rogues from level 1 to mid teens.

I would play a sidekick expert first from now on.

Same hd
More skills
More tool proficiencies
More expertise
An extra asi
The same cunning action but can also use help action
The same jack of all trades from bard essentially
Extra attack
Help action can add 1d6 to a roll which is like infinite use inspiration
Same reliable talent
A better extra save in the teens, rogues must choose wisdom, expert gets to pick
Same capstone.

I would play that instead of a rogue.

[diplomancer]

this UA looks good specially for small (2-3 PCs) parties, especially if you are using published modules.

Add a sidekick of the appropriate level and you don't need to rebalance all the encounters.

also good if a player suddenly quits mid-campaign.

[Petrocorus]

This Sidekick looks too good.
Compared to the Sorcerer, the spellcaster gets 3 skills, light armor, one more spell known, magical recovery, potent cantrips, empowered spells, signature spells.
He lacks metamagic and subclass features, and can choose his spell list.

I wouldn't say it's more powerful but it's not that far behind.

And the Warrior? Put that on a riding dog and the Beastmaster can kiss his whole purpose goodbye.

[Luccan]

This Sidekick looks too good.
Compared to the Sorcerer, the spellcaster gets 3 skills, light armor, one more spell known, magical recovery, potent cantrips, empowered spells, signature spells.
He lacks metamagic and subclass features, and can choose his spell list.

I wouldn't say it's more powerful but it's not that far behind.

And the Warrior? Put that on a riding dog and the Beastmaster can kiss his whole purpose goodbye.

Yeah, but a trained riding dog was already a better baseline, because it gets its own turn. That's more a matter of Beastmaster not being very good.

On Spellcaster vs sorcerer, this is why sorcerer bloodlines need a bonus spell list, 1-9. That or just give them more spells per level as a baseline.

[Mehangel]

I personally houseruled that the spellcaster sidekick has its spellcasting progression knocked down to that of the paladin/ranger (but still keeps cantrips). I also allow the paladin and ranger spell lists to be chosen for their spell list. Sidekicks with the paladin spell list gain access to cleric cantrips, while those with the ranger spell list gain access to druid cantrips.

Ultimately, these houserules help keep sidekick spellcasters from outshining other player spellcasters.

[CTurbo]

I personally houseruled that the spellcaster sidekick has its spellcasting progression knocked down to that of the paladin/ranger (but still keeps cantrips). I also allow the paladin and ranger spell lists to be chosen for their spell list. Sidekicks with the paladin spell list gain access to cleric cantrips, while those with the ranger spell list gain access to druid cantrips.

Ultimately, these houserules help keep sidekick spellcasters from outshining other player spellcasters.

I completely 100% agree and is exactly what I planned to do. I even considered letting them gain back all spell slots on a short rest too, but not sure.

[Petrocorus]

Yeah, but a trained riding dog was already a better baseline, because it gets its own turn. That's more a matter of Beastmaster not being very good.

That's true. But what i meant is that not only they are not good, but now, they have no reason to exist any more.




On Spellcaster vs sorcerer, this is why sorcerer bloodlines need a bonus spell list, 1-9. That or just give them more spells per level as a baseline.
I've always though they should have the same number of spell known that the Bard.

In actuality, +1 skill, + light armor, +1 spell known, + magical recovery, + potent cantrips, + empowered spells, + signature spells would make a very decent subclass for the Sorcerer, even without the access to other spell lists.

[Scarletsteam]

it mentions it works with any creature/monster in the game, but says could be complicated and require recalculating CRs, but can't find any sort of guide or help on how to do such, anyone happen to know or have a link to one?

[Finback]

Of note: animated armor, scarecrow and lion are all CR 1. Dorothy is ready to storm the wizard's castle.

And Dorothy is going to go stand there, over a melting, screaming hag, and put on some shades and say,

"Witches be drippin'."

[Kane0]

Ooh, 1/3 casting with short rest recovery, i like that idea.

[Luccan]

And Dorothy is going to go stand there, over a melting, screaming hag, and put on some shades and say,

"Witches be drippin'."

Boo! I wish I'd thought of that...

Interesting question, it they're all sidekicks, what's Dorothy's PC class gonna be? I'm going to go with an Archfey Chain Pact Warlock (Toto is her familiar).

[Benny89]

I don't know... I was making sidekicks without effort so far, I don't know why I would need that.

For example for Sidekick fighter I go no-subclass fighter with no feats apart from 3 ASI total across and they can't start with abilities scores higher than 14.

For casting side-kick I cut spellcasting to max level 7 at max level and 2 ASI total too. No feats too. No-subclasses, limited spells known (you have to teach your side-kick or make him find scrolls etc.)

Not that someone used that more then one or twice in my campaigns (first one was Paladin who wanted squire and second a Wizard who got young apprentice) but it was not hard to make them.

Also I disagree with giving sidekick full spell casting. This is way too much imo. Level 6-7 should be max possible for side-kick.