How do people feel about the Sidekicks UA now?

[Greywander]

The Sidekicks UA (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf) has been out for a little while, so I was wondering what other people thought of it after having had time to use it. Have you used it in your games? How did it work out? What types of NPCs do you allow to take sidekick levels, and which ones do you not?

This UA seems to be intended for human or human-like NPCs, so I'd imagine those work without a problem. Guards, rescued children, mysterious old men, etc.

What about pets and mounts? Logically, I can't see a reason not to, though it gets weird when you have a weak animal with sidekick levels who is stronger than a powerful animal without. Sidekick levels require CR 1, but I'd probably just remove the HP growth for a few levels to compensate, e.g. a CR 8 creature would take their first 7 sidekick levels without any HP gains, or only get HP ever other level for 14 levels.

What about familiars? This can get especially weird when you have a chainlock familiar, who fulfills the requirement to take expert or spellcaster sidekick levels, who might get resummoned later as an animal who is only eligible for warrior sidekick levels. Is it the same spirit every time you summon it? Can you choose to summon a different spirit, i.e. switch between different familiar sidekicks? Or do you start from scratch every time it dies?

What about the necromancer's skeletons? Technically, he can keep them around indefinitely (especially with Command Undead), however my understanding is that creatures without souls (which includes standard skeletons and zombies) aren't able to learn new information, ergo it seems illogical that they would be able to grow.

[Seclora]

I would give a Beastmaster's companion the full warrior progression, the Chainlock's Familiar a half progression with options, all other Familiars/ steeds a level as a boon only(that is to say, DMs discretion.

For the Necromancer, I would give their permanent controlled undead progression if it made sense for the undead. Like, if you had a vampire, sure, progression, that's an NPC. Average Skeleton? probably not, unless he was roleplayed as a unique entity, in which case, yes I would.

A GoO Warlock's thrall should clearly get progression, he's a unique entity and potential threat if switched out.

So I guess the real questions to ask before granting sidekick status are
1. Is this a unique, named NPC the DM could feasibly roleplay outside of combat?
2. Should this individual be capable of becoming a problem if treated poorly by a player?

Is it a Person? Does it have Agency? If both are true, then yes it can get progression.


As for how to run Sidekicks above CR 1, I would treat their CR as their level, and add levels past that point. It's really not intended this way though, so be careful.

[SLOTHRPG95]

For the Necromancer, I would give their permanent controlled undead progression if it made sense for the undead. Like, if you had a vampire, sure, progression, that's an NPC. Average Skeleton? probably not, unless he was roleplayed as a unique entity, in which case, yes I would.


Unless it's a vampire spawn, it'll break free eventually. Any undead with at least 12 Intelligence gets to make a save every hour, with advantage. Still leaves plenty of respectable undead, including all those you can normally make with Create Undead. Wights even have decent base Charisma, if you want a Spellcaster sidekick.

[MeeposFire]

I would only allow NPCs to use it if the party uses them as actual party members in which case I treat them as part of the party. That of course means they need a cut of the treasure and what not. When using them they feel like more generic forms of more common classes but I think that works since they are meant to be NPCs that level up with the other characters and the fact they lack some more defining features (not really power as for instance getting 4 attacks per action is very much a big part of the firepower of a fighter and is big in combat but it does not define much of the character outside of being effective whereas some of the subclass stuff really can define a character).

I admit I have looked into random adventure books to see what NPCs make for the best sidekick characters in terms of stats (I am a DM 90%+ of the time so it is not for me as a benefit I was just curious to see what you could find).

[paladinn]

I think the "sidekick" classes are a good start on creating "generic" classes like in the 3.5 UA. I Love the spellcaster class, and I'd sooner play a warrior than a fighter/champion.

[Seclora]

Unless it's a vampire spawn, it'll break free eventually. Any undead with at least 12 Intelligence gets to make a save every hour, with advantage. Still leaves plenty of respectable undead, including all those you can normally make with Create Undead. Wights even have decent base Charisma, if you want a Spellcaster sidekick.
Thanks, I haven't actually had a chance to play a necromancer yet and none of my players ever want to, so I was a little fuzzy on the ability.
I believe Wights are one of the preferred choices too, and a backup spellcaster is always a good idea.

[Greywander]

Unless it's a vampire spawn, it'll break free eventually. Any undead with at least 12 Intelligence gets to make a save every hour, with advantage. Still leaves plenty of respectable undead, including all those you can normally make with Create Undead. Wights even have decent base Charisma, if you want a Spellcaster sidekick.
Yeah, I was looking into this. Mummy Lords, Nightwalkers, and Ancient White Dracoliches (or otherwise undead Ancient White Dragons) seem to be the strongest options for Command Undead that have less than 12 INT. But I could also see taking one of your run-of-the-mill skeletons and making them a permanent bodyguard with sidekick levels. Might be kind of interesting. A backup cleric, in particular, might be handy. But probably not for your standard skeletons or zombies, only one you've "empowered" with Command Undead.

I'm still not sure about familiars, though. Are they really a separate entity from the caster? I tend to view them as an extension of the caster's own soul, like a guardian spirit. I kind of feel like familiars should have had built in scaling already, like adding your level to their max HP, and using your proficiency bonus instead of their own, and maybe a +1 to all ability scores at 5th, 11th, and 17th levels. But hey, I guess if we really want scaling, that's what the Sidekicks UA is for.

[Misterwhisper]

I would play an expert over playing a rogue in a game if I got the chance.

Warrior is kind of meh.

Spell caster is pretty nice if you pick warlock or cleric list but not as good as a wizard or versatile as a bard.

[Sigreid]

My table likes it and uses it for a sidekick picked up in an adventure. Yes, she gets treasure too.

Edit: she got access to sidekick when the party spent major not easily replaceable resources to save her life after knowing her for a while.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Thanks, I haven't actually had a chance to play a necromancer yet and none of my players ever want to, so I was a little fuzzy on the ability.
I believe Wights are one of the preferred choices too, and a backup spellcaster is always a good idea.

I love the idea of a Wight Herald, announcing to the villagers that they have the honor of being your next addition to your zombie horde. Plus, between picking Bard spells and Sorcerer spells, the former expands your repertoire way more, since you're already a Wizard and so you've got the Sorcerer beat when it comes to spell lists. If you're strictly limited to CR 1 or lower creatures, you're probably best off with a Ghoul Warrior or Expert, but I suppose if you're willing to slowly pump their WIS, they could be a passable Cleric-list Spellcaster.


Yeah, I was looking into this. Mummy Lords, Nightwalkers, and Ancient White Dracoliches (or otherwise undead Ancient White Dragons) seem to be the strongest options for Command Undead that have less than 12 INT. But I could also see taking one of your run-of-the-mill skeletons and making them a permanent bodyguard with sidekick levels. Might be kind of interesting. A backup cleric, in particular, might be handy. But probably not for your standard skeletons or zombies, only one you've "empowered" with Command Undead.


These would all be powerful choices, but you've sadly no guarantee of finding a suitable creature. That's the big advantage of being able to create your own undead, and then subsequently recruit/promote one to Sidekick status.

[Damon_Tor]

I used it to create a class for my 3 year old daughter, who wanted to be a fox. I split the difference between a cat and a wolf right down the middle to create the fox stat block then gave her the sidekick warrior class. Because she's played by a three year old, the fox only helps out the party sporadically, showing up (or vanishing) mid battle, but that's all a part of the charm and fun.

[MeeposFire]

I used it to create a class for my 3 year old daughter, who wanted to be a fox. I split the difference between a cat and a wolf right down the middle to create the fox stat block then gave her the sidekick warrior class. Because she's played by a three year old, the fox only helps out the party sporadically, showing up (or vanishing) mid battle, but that's all a part of the charm and fun.

That is a great way to have an animal companion without forcing a particular subclass. You have your family dog that followed you out into the world you could opt to have it become a sidekick for the party and it would work quite well. The dog would need to be played as its own being (not just an extension of the character that owns it) but it would be a fun way to do it.

[Luccan]

It's implied by the document that animals should only receive the warrior Sidekick class (as it specifically addresses battle trained beasts under Warrior, but requires languages and such for the other two). So, they totally can have the classes and, if you want to let players make long term use of pets and mounts, should IMO.

I plan on using it for a wolf on of my PC's druid adopted once they bond with it enough. Because the other option is it dies the first time it gets hit once they reach like level 5.

[JackPhoenix]

For me, nothing you get from class abilities (familiars, paladin steeds, undead or bound creatures, thralls) qualifies. Neither do animals (and creatures with animal-level intelligence), despite what the document says about requirements. Actual NPCs, yeah, sure. Used it for a dryad the party befriended and convinced to tag along with them in previous game.

[Nagog]

In the past, I've just created new characters with their own character sheets for a player to have as another character, and for now I may keep doing that (Having that side character be a Kraken Warlock is important to the story, and giving other folks sidekicks when that player has 2 full character would be unfair), but does anybody know how to factor Sidekicks into the party's power level for calculating CR Encounters?

[rlc]

My 6 year old wanted to try out "the dice game," so I made her a custom npc with some stuff that would sound cool to a 6 year old and just had her pick which sidekick class she wanted to use.
She only played a few times, but the small number of choices made it easy for me to pick it up and control the character for her when she didn't feel like playing.

[Monster Manuel]

My biggest problem with the Sidekick UA now is the same as it was when it came out; I just can't square it with the Beastmaster's pet.

I can't justify how the Monk's pet dog that's been with him since 3rd level and has picked up Warrior levels is so mechanically different from the Beastmaster's Wolf, which is a full-fledged class feature but has been with the party just as long, and is MORE of a sidekick, in practice.

If the two rulesets were more in-line with each other for pets, and the core feature of the Beastmaster didn't end up worse than a random-dog-with-levels, I'd be all for it.

And, really, it's just pets that give me trouble. For tag-along NPCs, it's great. They stay viable, but not powerful enough to dip into PC-status; the PCs are still the heroes. I guess if I did like JackPhoenix does, and ban it for animals, it wouldn't be an issue. I'd still like for there to be some way to make a non-beastmaster animal companion remain somewhat viable throughout the course of the game beyond just handwaving that it never gets damaged, or live with the fact that it just dies the first time there's an AOE.

Some of my players enjoy playing out their John Wick moment, but others, not so much...

[NaughtyTiger]

Just when they made Beastmaster playable... Oprah shows up and gives everyone a free (no resource or class ability) and better companion (you get a wolf, and you get a wolf...)
They hate Beastmaster. It make me sad.


I used it to create a class for my 3 year old daughter, who wanted to be a fox. I split the difference between a cat and a wolf right down the middle to create the fox stat block then gave her the sidekick warrior class. Because she's played by a three year old, the fox only helps out the party sporadically, showing up (or vanishing) mid battle, but that's all a part of the charm and fun.

that is adorable!

[DominoMasque]

I think the Beastmaster needs another revision.

I've not had chance to play D&D in a while, but I've been looking to the sidekicks to round out when I play with my partner and daughter.

[Segev]

My big problem with Sidekick Classes is that it seems unclear "when" you should scrap the existing mechanics for the NPC (i.e. when does it stop using the Blink Dog entry, or the Adept entry, or the Hobgoblin entry) and start using a rebuild as a Sidekick? And what level should the Sidekick be? Same as the party/patron character's? Lower? By how much?

And it also strikes me as not particularly weaker than what exists, but more flexible, and no easier to build. Why not just make the Adept that's hanging out with the party a full-fledged Cleric, or upgrade him to a Priest? What purpose does this Sidekick Spellcaster class serve that an extant class or better statblock in the MM wouldn't serve better?

It would be one thing if it was integrated into other class's mechanics, or feats. The Beastmaster gets an animal companion which levels up as a Warrior Sidekick, using the animal's stats if they're better than whatever the class gives it. The Sidekick level is the same as the Ranger's. The Leadership Feat lets you pick an NPC or creature who trusts you as your Sidekick, gaining levels in an appropriate Sidekick class 3 levels lower than your own (minimum 1), again using the original statblock's numbers where they're better than the Sidekick's. You cannot have a Sidekick whose CR before taking the class is higher than 1/3 your level.

But as-is, it's so ad hoc that it doesn't provide any help. What good is this vs. just using existing classes to beef up followers? Or using higher-CR statblocks of similar creatures from the MM? Again: Adept->Priest, Shaman->Druid, Warrior->Champion, Goblin->Goblin Boss, etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I used it to create a class for my 3 year old daughter, who wanted to be a fox. I split the difference between a cat and a wolf right down the middle to create the fox stat block then gave her the sidekick warrior class. Because she's played by a three year old, the fox only helps out the party sporadically, showing up (or vanishing) mid battle, but that's all a part of the charm and fun.

I let my 5-year-old play an awakened squirrel during a family one-shot. He drifted in and out, but mainly bit a zombie on the toe (dealt 1 damage). Since it was a low-level one-shot, I didn't need to do the class levels, but I'd have done it Sidekick style if I did.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My big problem with Sidekick Classes is that it seems unclear "when" you should scrap the existing mechanics for the NPC (i.e. when does it stop using the Blink Dog entry, or the Adept entry, or the Hobgoblin entry) and start using a rebuild as a Sidekick? And what level should the Sidekick be? Same as the party/patron character's? Lower? By how much?


The idea is that you don't scrap the existing stat block. You take the existing one as the initial point (when they join the party) and add sidekick levels after that. They gain one level for every level the party gets.

So if a Hobgoblin joins the party at level 3 and then the party eventually hits level 6, he'd be a Hobgoblin/Warrior 3. Yes, this means that if you add a low-CR creature early on they'll be more powerful at a given party level than if you add them in late, but :shrug:.

Or you can (especially for low-CR humanoids) just add more sidekick levels at the start, so it might start as a Hobgoblin/Warrior 3 and advance to Hobgoblin/Warrior 6 when the party is 6th level.

I've used them with a Giant Lizard, Adept, Scout, and Thug and it worked great.

[Damon_Tor]

that is adorable!

It really is. Last night we had an encounter where the party entered combat at the docks, the party all rolls initiative, and I asked her what she wanted the fox to do. "Go swimming!" she exclaimed, utterly uninterested in the assassin they had cornered, and much more concerned with the description I had given of the ocean. As it turns out, the assassin managed to shove his stabbed-but-not-dead victim over the side of the dock during the next round, and she was right there paddling around and ready to help him find something to cling to.

[NaughtyTiger]

It really is. Last night we had an encounter where the party entered combat at the docks, the party all rolls initiative, and I asked her what she wanted the fox to do. "Go swimming!" she exclaimed, utterly uninterested in the assassin they had cornered, and much more concerned with the description I had given of the ocean. As it turns out, the assassin managed to shove his stabbed-but-not-dead victim over the side of the dock during the next round, and she was right there paddling around and ready to help him find something to cling to.

that is freaking awesome. stop it. i want to play at that table!

[Damon_Tor]

that is freaking awesome. stop it. i want to play at that table!

Playing D&D with kids, even (especially?) really small kids, is much more fun than I would have thought. They're extremely creative. There was a point in the story where our party was tangling with a gang of halflings who had dug tunnels under the streets. The tunnels were small, so most of the party would have to squeeze to follow the halflings, but my 6-year-old son decided he would take his Barbarian up to the street level and bash through the cobblestones with his warhammer. I hadn't planned on the players being able to capture one of the halflings (they had left behind clues that would further the plot) but this creative solution gave them someone to interrogate, which meant I had to improvise a character I hadn't fleshed out much. Of course the city wasn't pleased with the new pothole.

[NaughtyTiger]

Playing D&D with kids, even (especially?) really small kids, is much more fun than I would have thought. They're extremely creative. There was a point in the story where our party was tangling with a gang of halflings who had dug tunnels under the streets. The tunnels were small, so most of the party would have to squeeze to follow the halflings, but my 6-year-old son decided he would take his Barbarian up to the street level and bash through the cobblestones with his warhammer. I hadn't planned on the players being able to capture one of the halflings (they had left behind clues that would further the plot) but this creative solution gave them someone to interrogate, which meant I had to improvise a character I hadn't fleshed out much. Of course the city wasn't pleased with the new pothole.

i have been misunderestimating their creativity... hmm.

[Sariel Vailo]

I used it to create a class for my 3 year old daughter, who wanted to be a fox. I split the difference between a cat and a wolf right down the middle to create the fox stat block then gave her the sidekick warrior class. Because she's played by a three year old, the fox only helps out the party sporadically, showing up (or vanishing) mid battle, but that's all a part of the charm and fun.

The cutenesss it's so damn cute.

[No brains]

The problem I ran into with the spellcaster sidekick class is that as-written, an NPC who was earlier established to be a wizard with a spellbook would lose their wizard spellcasting. That means no spellbook and no ritual caster. Would they just forget how to use those?

[Coidzor]

I feel it needs further refinement and tweaking, mostly.