Spellcaster "Sidekick"

[paladinn]

I'm considering adapting the spellcaster "sidekick" class to serve as a more generic mage caster class. There is quite a difference between the original UA class and that in Tasha's. For the most part the UA version is more powerful overall IMO; but Tasha's has an interesting feature. The UA requires a caster to choose a spell list (bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock or wizard) that also determines the casting ability and casting focus. Tasha's requires selecting a "role" (mage, healer or prodigy). Mage allows only the wizard list, but healer allows Both the cleric and druid lists, and prodigy allows both the warlock and bard lists.

I'll probably use the "chassis" from the UA; but I do like a spellcaster being able to choose from multiple lists. I would likely allow the mage to use the wizard and sorcerer lists. But I'm tempted to use the prodigy; it seems like it'd be a lot of fun. The original 3e "generic" spellcaster class allowed selection from Any spell list, so this is still a bit of a nerf.

Has anyone played or DM'ed a spellcaster character? Which "role" do you find best? Any thoughts?

[animorte]

I have played all the Sidekicks a fair amount. I think they are a solid entry point for newer players, but I also think they create a very good balance among each other. The spellcaster is under no circumstance overpowered like we face with our typical caster classes. The two martials don't really fall behind, though spells alone do make quite a difference, as we all know. An interesting note though is that, if your DM allows, you can get some really creative race choices based on being able to choose any CR 1/2 (or less) monster (but it must be able to speak a language if you intend to be a spellcaster).

There are several problems to note:
- When in a game with non-sidekick similar base classes, the power level is noticeable if everyone is experienced. Rogue vs Expert, Fighter/Barb vs Warrior, and any full caster vs Spellcaster.
- There are no subclasses to modify your class or add flavor. (This is massive for some players.)
- The power bumps are a lot less noticeable; it feels like the classes get stronger more gradually. Tiers aren't nearly as defined.

Some of those things could be positives depending on your own playstyle/preference. I, personally, think Sidekicks are an excellent design that I have attempted to encourage others to give more of a chance. I also can be sort of a masochist when it comes to games. Sometimes I see more basic things and pride myself on making them equally efficient anyway., it's a fun challenge! That's not how everybody functions though, and that's ok. And I don't always prefer this method.

Basically, if you're an extreme optimizer or need some subclass assistance to define your character for you, Sidekicks are not the way to go.

But... you didn't really ask about all that. Sorry, I got a bit excited!

--------------------

To directly answer your last question, I think Prodigy is a good choice. You have a great deal of utility and get some solid damage options. Charisma is also useful. If you just wanted the widest variety of spells to choose from, Mage is your go-to but Intelligence is meh. My personal favorite is the Healer though as Wisdom is better for saves and I just enjoy those spell lists the most. Remember that no matter which one you go with, it is always spells-known, never prepared. But if you want to swap one out, you can do so every level up.

[paladinn]

But... you didn't really ask about all that. Sorry, I got a bit excited!

--------------------

To directly answer your last question, I think Prodigy is a good choice. You have a great deal of utility and get some solid damage options. Charisma is also useful. If you just wanted the widest variety of spells to choose from, Mage is your go-to but Intelligence is meh. My personal favorite is the Healer though as Wisdom is better for saves and I just enjoy those spell lists the most. Remember that no matter which one you go with, it is always spells-known, never prepared. But if you want to swap one out, you can do so every level up.

Thank you! I actually appreciate the excitement. I want to use the spellcaster "class" as the basis for something like the old "generic" spellcaster class. And while I know it may be a little behind an actual "full caster" in terms of some subclass features, I think it can still keep up, especially if I merge the UA version with Tasha's.

The 3e version actually allowed selection from Any spell list. I think this could make for some really interesting "custom caster" classes. A druid/wizard or druid/warlock mix could make a decent witch. Do you think allowing such selection would be OP? Especially considering there is no subclass?

Warlock isn't really a "full caster", so how good would the prodigy be? For the prodigy, e-blast is one of the recommended starting spells (which is pretty cool IMO). But the warlock invocations like agonizing blast really adds to the power, and the spellcaster btb doesn't get invocations. Would it still be a good choice?

Thanks again for the input!

[animorte]

I don’t think blending whichever two spell lists you want will break the game in any way. It seems like a more thematic approach to prevent a lot of overlap, and thus redundant spells available provided there were multiple Spellcasters. Though, if you notice, it specifically caters to the different spell casting ability modifiers.

Eldritch Blast is still a worthy choice because it has good damage and it’s force damage, which is the least resisted damage type. You get to add your ability modifier to the damage of all cantrips at level 6 anyway, basically equivalent to picking up Agonizing Blast.

[paladinn]

I don’t think blending whichever two spell lists you want will break the game in any way. It seems like a more thematic approach to prevent a lot of overlap, and thus redundant spells available provided there were multiple Spellcasters. Though, if you notice, it specifically caters to the different spell casting ability modifiers.

Eldritch Blast is still a worthy choice because it has good damage and it’s force damage, which is the least resisted damage type. You get to add your ability modifier to the damage of all cantrips at level 6 anyway, basically equivalent to picking up Agonizing Blast.

Sweet! So since sorcerer and warlock both use Cha, that would be a good combo? Or maybe allow sorc, warlock and bard? I confess, I love the idea of both blasting and healing, but I don't want to go all gonzo.

If I have a new player that wants to play a caster but can't decide on a class, it seems like a good option.

[animorte]

Sweet! So since sorcerer and warlock both use Cha, that would be a good combo? Or maybe allow sorc, warlock and bard? I confess, I love the idea of both blasting and healing, but I don't want to go all gonzo.

If I have a new player that wants to play a caster but can't decide on a class, it seems like a good option.
That’s shouldn’t be a problem, but I don’t see why you would need three. Bard has a great deal of utility itself, so that would be an easy pick for me.

It is a very good option indeed! Simple AND effective, a difficult balance to maintain.

Another fun note: any time I have ever mentioned Sidekicks within these forums, I have received no response on the matter, almost like it’s taboo or something… would be interesting to shed light on that.

[paladinn]

That’s shouldn’t be a problem, but I don’t see why you would need three. Bard has a great deal of utility itself, so that would be an easy pick for me.

It is a very good option indeed! Simple AND effective, a difficult balance to maintain.

Another fun note: any time I have ever mentioned Sidekicks within these forums, I have received no response on the matter, almost like it’s taboo or something… would be interesting to shed light on that.

I'm looking at this as the 5e equivalent of the old 3e "generic" Spellcaster class, or even the True20 Adept "classes". The only thing lacking would be a couple basic things, like the Cleric's turn undead or the Druid's wildshape. But I know both were made into spells in Pathfinder, so maybe they can be adapted.

[animorte]

I'm looking at this as the 5e equivalent of the old 3e "generic" Spellcaster class, or even the True20 Adept "classes". The only thing lacking would be a couple basic things, like the Cleric's turn undead or the Druid's wildshape. But I know both were made into spells in Pathfinder, so maybe they can be adapted.

I know what you mean. Similar to being able to adopt the Rogue's sneak attack. If seeking to add a preexisting class feature, just remember to give it an equal or lesser usage limit, like The Channel Divinity and Wild Shape being used once and then recovering on a short or long rest.

[paladinn]

I know what you mean. Similar to being able to adopt the Rogue's sneak attack. If seeking to add a preexisting class feature, just remember to give it an equal or lesser usage limit, like The Channel Divinity and Wild Shape being used once and then recovering on a short or long rest.

Pathfinder has a series of spells, Beast Shape I - IV, spells at levels 3-6. They operate like a druid's wildshape, with each level granting a larger size (obviously a candidate for upcasting). There's also a spell Disrupt Undead that's a cantrip (!) that does 1d6 damage. It could be adapted to be a leveled spell with more damage that can be upcast.

Since those would be spells, they are automatically limited.

I already have a good take on a Warrior class, and will get on the Expert when I'm done with the Mage/Caster. Sneak Attack is something I'll be working on.. lol.