how far would you push sidekicks

[Amdy_vill]

How far would you p[ush sidekicks in your games? does beast master's animal companion count, a cavaliers mount, how about a familiar from Pact of the chain warlock, or normal familiars, what about creatures summoned using the true name rules, thier always the same creature so can they have a sidekick class, what about normal summons or undead created by a player? obviously, they still have to be a 1/2 cr creature but how far would you push it in your games.

personaly my anwer is

Edit: I Believe any Sidekick should be story relevant and not an automatic you get this. I am more looking for the lines you would draw after the story and other qualifications are satiffyed. if the players are getting Sidekicks where is the line for what can't be a sidekick.

Beastmaster yes

Cavaliers mount yes

Pact of the cains no

Familiar no

Ture Name Summons yes

Normal Summons No

Undead Maybe depends on the game and the player.

[Lunali]

No to all, sidekicks are for NPCs that come along with the party to make up numbers to avoid having to rebalance encounters.

[Anonymouswizard]

No to all, sidekicks are for NPCs that come along with the party to make up numbers to avoid having to rebalance encounters.

Eh, I'd allow an animal companion or familiar to be one of those NPCs, as long as the player understands that they're forfeiting some control in exchange for them being a full party member.

But I wouldn't use the sidekick rules for them in general unless everybody got a sidekick (which I might do for a three person party at some point).

[EggKookoo]

No to all, sidekicks are for NPCs that come along with the party to make up numbers to avoid having to rebalance encounters.

Agreed. I wouldn't use the sidekick mechanic for any creature that's a built-in asset of a PC build.

[JackPhoenix]

Nothing that comes from class features or spells.

[Amdy_vill]

No to all, sidekicks are for NPCs that come along with the party to make up numbers to avoid having to rebalance encounters.

You're right kinda. yes they are NPC but tashas calls out letting players run them and that the NPC is important to the characters. you will notice all the creatures I said yes to are creatures that definitely fall into the "a villager, an animal, or another creature, forge a friendship, and invite the creature to join them on their adventures". in no place does it talk about being used for balance. the rules are made for tag-along friends and reoccurring NPCs that work in the part. it even calls out pets as a normal option. I see a point about balance but it's not part of the rules or its purpose.

[Amdy_vill]

Nothing that comes from class features or spells.

so in your option beast master does not get one but a cavalier could. interesting could you elaborate on why you draw the line here.

[Amdy_vill]

Agreed. I wouldn't use the sidekick mechanic for any creature that's a built-in asset of a PC build.

I am not suggesting an automatic you get it. Sidekicks are clearly special examples with a focus on the story. I also don't like this Built-in argument as it makes odd lines like with caviler and beastmaster. caviler does not have a built-in pet but needs one so would be able to get a sidekick but because the beastmaster's pet is built in it lack the ability to have their pet as a sidekick.

[JackPhoenix]

so in your option beast master does not get one but a cavalier could. interesting could you elaborate on why you draw the line here.

Cavalier and beast master have exactly the same access to NPCs. As does everyone else, for that matter.

Normal, non-sapient animals aren't really NPCs, anyway.

[Amdy_vill]

Cavalier and beast master have exactly the same access to NPCs. As does everyone else, for that matter.

Normal, non-sapient animals aren't really NPCs, anyway.

I seem My a miscommunication here. yes, they both have access to NPC but one would have the possibility of a big feature getting a buff and the other wouldn't because of the design philosophy of the classes). I also see your point of animals not normally being NPCs but tashas specifically calls them out. There are also barriers specifically put in place for animals. animals can only be warriors unless you awaken them because of the rules on what they need to be an expert or spellcaster.

Edit: I have clarified my point in the first post.

[EggKookoo]

I am not suggesting an automatic you get it. Sidekicks are clearly special examples with a focus on the story. I also don't like this Built-in argument as it makes odd lines like with caviler and beastmaster. caviler does not have a built-in pet but needs one so would be able to get a sidekick but because the beastmaster's pet is built in it lack the ability to have their pet as a sidekick.

If a cavalier needs a mount to function effectively, I would consider it built-in, despite the subclass not being given a feature that provides it. Basically the mount is part of the class, not a separate entity. Put another way, I would only use the sidekick mechanic for companions that aren't mechanically bound to a class (which I consider the cavalier's mount to be, since the subclass has features that require it).

There may be exceptions or outliers, of course. I just mean as a general approach.

[JackPhoenix]

I seem My a miscommunication here. yes, they both have access to NPC but one would have the possibility of a big feature getting a buff and the other wouldn't because of the design philosophy of the classes). I also see your point of animals not normally being NPCs but tashas specifically calls them out. There are also barriers specifically put in place for animals. animals can only be warriors unless you awaken them because of the rules on what they need to be an expert or spellcaster.

Edit: I have clarified my point in the first post.

Born to the Saddle is a ribbon, not "big feature", and cavalier doesn't rely on having a mount in any way. And I don't care what Tasha says, I won't have (or open, I'll get it sooner) the book for a month, but as far as I'm concerned, animals are not eligible as sidekicks.

[EggKookoo]

Born to the Saddle is a ribbon, not "big feature", and cavalier doesn't rely on having a mount in any way. And I don't care what Tasha says, I won't have (or open, I'll get it sooner) the book for a month, but as far as I'm concerned, animals are not eligible as sidekicks.

Any CR 1/2 creature in the MM can be a sidekick. Beasts are no exception. Since speaking and understanding a language is a requirement for expert and spellcaster, most beasts will end up warriors.

[Amdy_vill]

If a cavalier needs a mount to function effectively, I would consider it built-in, despite the subclass not being given a feature that provides it. Basically the mount is part of the class, not a separate entity. Put another way, I would only use the sidekick mechanic for companions that aren't mechanically bound to a class (which I consider the cavalier's mount to be, since the subclass has features that require it).

There may be exceptions or outliers, of course. I just mean as a general approach.


Born to the Saddle is a ribbon, not "big feature", and cavalier doesn't rely on having a mount in any way. And I don't care what Tasha says, I won't have (or open, I'll get it sooner) the book for a month, but as far as I'm concerned, animals are not eligible as sidekicks.

I like the contrast between your approaches. I personally more agree with Egg, while most people would not use Built-in like that it is a better use than the normal, and if that is how the line is drawn and it is used as a general I like it.

Phoenix why do you disqualify animals. It's an interesting line to draw in dnd because pets are often big characters in books and lore, having gotten "special power" in these sources since pets became a big mechinic in 2e.

[Amnestic]

so in your option beast master does not get one but a cavalier could. interesting could you elaborate on why you draw the line here.

Sidekicks imho shouldn't be used to 'patch' class features (underperforming or otherwise). They're essentially a full extra character/party member. If your group is fine with the ranger playing two characters, cool, but in that case I would probably tell them to play a different subclass other than beastmaster. Unless they wanted *two* pets at once.

[Amdy_vill]

Sidekicks imho shouldn't be used to 'patch' class features (underperforming or otherwise). They're essentially a full extra character/party member. If your group is fine with the ranger playing two characters, cool, but in that case I would probably tell them to play a different subclass other than beastmaster. Unless they wanted *two* pets at once.

I agree. we are more looking for a line when the party is guaranteed Sidekicks. I think in general you shouldn't use sidekicks as a patch for a ranger of cavilier but in a hypothetical in with one or everyone in the party is getting a sidekick where should you draw the line. if everyone has a sidekick can the cavalier have a warrior horse? I am looking for the line after all other qualifications are met. mostly because that is a more interesting question.

[x3n0n]

Sidekicks imho shouldn't be used to 'patch' class features (underperforming or otherwise). They're essentially a full extra character/party member. If your group is fine with the ranger playing two characters, cool, but in that case I would probably tell them to play a different subclass other than beastmaster. Unless they wanted *two* pets at once.

This.

The class features do the level-based scaling themselves, and are intended to be balanced so that the PC plus the pet count together as one character for the purposes of encounter scaling.

The sidekick is intended to be an easy-to-run near-PC-class character, and should count as such for the purposes of encounter scaling and XP.

*Once the DM decides that adding a Large Warrior sidekick to the party is appropriate*, and the Cavalier decides that running a sidekick would be fun, then yes, by all means, make it a Warhorse.

[EggKookoo]

I like the contrast between your approaches. I personally more agree with Egg, while most people would not use Built-in like that it is a better use than the normal, and if that is how the line is drawn and it is used as a general I like it.

To be fair I don't have any experience with the cavalier. I have run a party with a sidekick but it was the pre-Tasha, UA version (main difference being a CR 1 base). So my advice here should be moderated accordingly.

[Amnestic]

I agree. we are more looking for a line when the party is guaranteed Sidekicks. I think in general you shouldn't use sidekicks as a patch for a ranger of cavilier but in a hypothetical in with one or everyone in the party is getting a sidekick where should you draw the line. if everyone has a sidekick can the cavalier have a warrior horse? I am looking for the line after all other qualifications are met. mostly because that is a more interesting question.

If I were DMing in a group where every player had their own sidekick (eg. if the party's only got two or three players) then I'd take suggestions for how the players wanted to fold that in for sure, and if a cavalier player said "hey, what if it's my horse" then I'd be open to that though I'd warn them of the usual issues that a large mount like a horse has in D&D - climbing or dungeoncrawling can pose issues when you're Large and don't have hands. Having to leave your normal riding horse outside the dungeon as a Cavalier isn't really an issue in the short term, but having to leave your Sidekick outside very much becomes one. At that point you're down a party member.

Answer remains the same for beastmaster ranger - it's not a replacement, it's an addition.

[Unoriginal]

Sidekicks are friends, not power-ups.

[Amdy_vill]

If I were DMing in a group where every player had their own sidekick (eg. if the party's only got two or three players) then I'd take suggestions for how the players wanted to fold that in for sure, and if a cavalier player said "hey, what if it's my horse" then I'd be open to that though I'd warn them of the usual issues that a large mount like a horse has in D&D - climbing or dungeoncrawling can pose issues when you're Large and don't have hands. Having to leave your normal riding horse outside the dungeon as a Cavalier isn't really an issue in the short term, but having to leave your Sidekick outside very much becomes one. At that point you're down a party member.

Answer remains the same for beastmaster ranger - it's not a replacement, it's an addition.

So this might be odd but I have been playing dnd for almost 10 years now and I have only been in 4 dungeons 2 of which were dwarven citadels so there was enough space for mounts. In my experience dungeons seem to be rare in dnd games at least when you play with experienced players(Most people I play with are 2e veterans in their 40s). just an odd note is it weird to have this expirance.

[Amdy_vill]

Sidekicks are friends, not power-ups.

I understand that we are talking about where you draw the line when all other qualifications are met.

[JackPhoenix]

Phoenix why do you disqualify animals. It's an interesting line to draw in dnd because pets are often big characters in books and lore, having gotten "special power" in these sources since pets became a big mechinic in 2e.

Personal preference. And it wouldn't be *just* animals, it would be anything non-sapient. You can get a better horse if you want and put some effort, but it won't level with you. And Awakened beasts or stuff like tressym (which shouldn't be animals in the first place, IMO) would work.

[Amdy_vill]

Personal preference. And it wouldn't be *just* animals, it would be anything non-sapient. You can get a better horse if you want and put some effort, but it won't level with you. And Awakened beasts or stuff like tressym (which shouldn't be animals in the first place, IMO) would work.

I find this interesting due to my previous point, there's just such a president in lore and dnd media for nonsapient pets to have magical powers or special almost player like training.

[Protolisk]

Sidekicks, to me, are for the DM to play as NPCs for the most part. If the player uses normal player character rules, and their rules reference some other creature, then its the base stats of whatever it is. Horse/donkey/mastiff as a purchased mount, beastmaster pet, conjuration spell, whatever.

However, I'm fine if a player wants to use the sidekick rules to play as a monster with "weaker" levels to make up for the innate oddity of being a playable flumph/wardog/shadow/cockatrice. In fact, my group will fairly soon do a small mini campaign where all they do is play using the Sidekick rules. But that's their character. They don't get to play a ranger AND getting a side kick spellcasting awakened shrub to boot.

If a player wanted to play an awakened horse expert or a worg spellcaster as their character, and another player was playing a Cavalier, sure, the Cav could ride the worg character. It's a fine interaction, and I'm down.

But only one "PC" is controlled by each player. Sidekick or otherwise.

As a side note, little in the Cavalier subclass requires a mount to work, except for the 3rd level feature that just removes the drawbacks of mounted characters. They work just as well on foot as on a mount.

[Amdy_vill]

As a side note, little in the Cavalier subclass requires a mount to work, except for the 3rd level feature that just removes the drawbacks of mounted characters. They work just as well on foot as on a mount.

I dislike this argument when it comes up, yes cavalier works without a mount but the point is to have a mount, you can not call yourself a cavalier if you don't fight with a mount the world literally means that. there are also the many benefits you get from mounted combat that take cavalier from being a bad class to an ok/above-average class if you are on the a mount. it's not an inbuilt property of the class but because of the rules it interacts with it becomes important

[Protolisk]

I dislike this argument when it comes up, yes cavalier works without a mount but the point is to have a mount, you can not call yourself a cavalier if you don't fight with a mount the world literally means that. there are also the many benefits you get from mounted combat that take cavalier from being a bad class to an ok/above-average class if you are on the a mount. it's not an inbuilt property of the class but because of the rules it interacts with it becomes important

The fact that the few times the word "mount" pops up in the Cavalier's rules, its only in the 3rd level feature that does grant the bonuses to using mounts, but they are mostly superficial. Hard to knock of a mount, when you do its no problem, and can get off the mount easily.

The other times mount is included, it didn't even need to be. One says to fend off strikes directed at you, your mount, or other creatures. If it just said "you and other creatures", it would mean the exact same thing. A later feature just says it works, "mounted or not". Could have saved the text and just not said it at all.

My mistake on my wording though. Having a mount does make a Cavalier better, and a Cavalier uses mounts better than most other characters. But a mount-less Cavalier is still a full fledged character.

Either way, a Cavalier shouldn't be a cavalier and a spell caster/expert/second warrior. That feels wrong.

[Amdy_vill]

The fact that the few times the word "mount" pops up in the Cavalier's rules, its only in the 3rd level feature that does grant the bonuses to using mounts, but they are mostly superficial. Hard to knock of a mount, when you do its no problem, and can get off the mount easily.

The other times mount is included, it didn't even need to be. One says to fend off strikes directed at you, your mount, or other creatures. If it just said "you and other creatures", it would mean the exact same thing. A later feature just says it works, "mounted or not". Could have saved the text and just not said it at all.

My mistake on my wording though. Having a mount does make a Cavalier better, and a Cavalier uses mounts better than most other characters. But a mount-less Cavalier is still a full fledged character.

Either way, a Cavalier shouldn't be a cavalier and a spell caster/expert/second warrior. That feels wrong.

I understand your opinion on Sidekicks, I would disagree that Cavaliers are Full-fledged Characters at least in a mechanical sense without a mount. they're predy underpowered without one. probably the second worse sub for fighter. and its not that they're so low on the Sub-class totem pole its that they're just so weak they get stomped.

[Sigreid]

You're right kinda. yes they are NPC but tashas calls out letting players run them and that the NPC is important to the characters. you will notice all the creatures I said yes to are creatures that definitely fall into the "a villager, an animal, or another creature, forge a friendship, and invite the creature to join them on their adventures". in no place does it talk about being used for balance. the rules are made for tag-along friends and reoccurring NPCs that work in the part. it even calls out pets as a normal option. I see a point about balance but it's not part of the rules or its purpose.

My group has been playing with sidekicks for a while. I decided that the sidekick is played by a player other than the one the sidekick is most loyal to. When asked about it I explained it as I just wanted to create a little space between the player and the sidekick without compromising the benefit.

[Amdy_vill]

My group has been playing with sidekicks for a while. I decided that the sidekick is played by a player other than the one the sidekick is most loyal to. When asked about it I explained it as I just wanted to create a little space between the player and the sidekick without compromising the benefit.

I love this idea. I will steal it for my own games.

[Pex]

Several groups I've played have adopted NPCs. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two were random NPC #4. The combination of circumstances in how they meet the party and DM giving them a personality we want to keep him and love him and call him George. Not just humans, also goblins and kobolds. If it was necessary and appropriate for the campaign the DM would give them regular class levels, lower level than the party. One eventually got promoted to full PC status of equal level.

That said I'm glad these guidelines exist. Some DMs run more serious games than others. If there will be a pet NPC the DM doesn't want the complexity of a full class. If he runs the NPC it's borderline DMPC, and evenif not that the DM has a world to run. If a player runs a full class NPC it's like adding another player complicating encounter design. A simpler class is a compromise. No matter who runs it, it helps the party as the players want but doesn't make for hard work on the DM's part. DMs are free to ignore this and give the NPC full class levels as before. Works for me.

Edit: Sorry. Misunderstood point of the thread, but I'll leave the comment as a tangential. I would not want familiars or mounts to be given sidekick status. It's not needed. Sidekicks are for NPCs the party wants to join them.

[Unoriginal]

I dislike this argument when it comes up, yes cavalier works without a mount but the point is to have a mount,

No. The Cavalier is a defensive Fighter who also works well with a mount. If the mount was the point they'd get a special mount as a class feature.




you can not call yourself a cavalier if you don't fight with a mount the world literally means that.

And by the same token, Barbarian means "someone who doesn't speak Greek".

Cavalier is more or less synonymous with "knight".



there are also the many benefits you get from mounted combat that take cavalier from being a bad class to an ok/above-average class if you are on the a mount.

The Cavalier is an amazing subclass, even without ever touching a mount.

[Amdy_vill]

And by the same token, Barbarian means "someone who doesn't speak Greek".

Cavalier is more or less synonymous with "knight".

so one while barbarian meant "someone who doesn't speak Greek" it does not have that context anymore. where cavalier does. also, knights still has that context of being a cavalier unit. unlike samurai which have lost that context.

[Unoriginal]

so one while barbarian meant "someone who doesn't speak Greek" it does not have that context anymore. where cavalier does. also, knights still has that context of being a cavalier unit.

No. "Knight" does not strictly mean an horse-mounted warrior anymore, hasn't for centuries. "Cavalier" does not solely mean a horse-mounted warrior either.

You're thinking of the word "cavalry".




unlike samurai which have lost that context.

Like the Xanathar's says, 5e is not using "Cavalier" or "Samurai" in the historical context of the words.

[Sigreid]

Eh, cavalier now pretty much means an almost reckless disregard for danger. Which is pretty appropriate for a tank focused fighter.