Multiclass in sidekicks to get nonverbal creatures out of Warrior

[Segev]

At level four of Warrior, as with all classes, your sidekick gets an ASI. Warrior is the only sidekick class available to creatures with no languages. Linguist is a feat, and has no requirements that you already speak. So after four levels of warrior, you can try to talk your DM into letting you multiclass your sidekick into expert or spellcaster!

Heck, if you start at level four or higher, you could try to argue for the Linguist feat at level four of either Expert or Spellcaster retroactively giving your sidekick the requisite language skills to take the class!

All of this is heavily DM-dependent, of course, so a DM could as easily waive the language requirement or just give a language to your sidekick. Or let you use the training downtime rules to teach it a language. 24 weeks for an int 3 creature, IIRC.

But paying a feat for it might assuage DMly concerns.

Or you could just seek a creature with language skills. Giant owls are magnificent mounts, have a language, and make great experts or spell casters. Expert works really well with controlled mounts, too, since dashing is an action controlled mounts may take.

But what got me thinking on this was the possibility of a giant wolf spider mount for a small character.

[CTurbo]

I don't think that by RAI, sidekicks are supposed to be able to take feats... only ASIs

[Psyren]

It might depend on how your DM interprets "you" - but as written, it seems that only PCs can take a feat in place of an ASI since the rules for doing so are in the PHB.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Sidekicks don't have "Using the optional feats rule, you can forgo taking this feature to take a feat of your choice instead." in their ASI feature, so they can't take feats.

[Anonymouswizard]

It might depend on how your DM interprets "you" - but as written, it seems that only PCs can take a feat in place of an ASI since the rules for doing so are in the PHB.

I'd argue that this doesn't strictly follow from the text as written. I'll agree that was probably the intent, but because the Feat rules were written before sidekicks were a thing it really just doesn't specify.

Honestly, if I was running a game with sidekicks and a player wanted to have Magibear I'd probably allow it without feats getting involved. Of course the bear would also develop a tendency to acquire pointy hats. The same with Skilldolphin and goggles...


Sidekicks don't have "Using the optional feats rule, you can forgo taking this feature to take a feat of your choice instead." in their ASI feature, so they can't take feats.

By this logic no class can take Feats. I checked my copy of the PhB, Eberron, and Tasha's. No class has such a note in their ASI feature.

[ProsecutorGodot]

By this logic no class can take Feats. I checked my copy of the PhB, Eberron, and Tasha's. No class has such a note in their ASI feature.

Huh, it's been so long since I opened a physical copy. Looks like that's a change DND Beyond makes.

In that case I don't see why you couldn't.

[Arkhios]

Feats are an OPTIONAL rule. Why is it so damn difficult to understand, even after so many years of 5th edition? Of course the ASI feature doesn't allow feats by default. It's the OPTIONAL rule that allows them. :smallamused:

[Kane0]

What about the Telepathic feat instead?

[paladinn]

Sidekicks don't have "Using the optional feats rule, you can forgo taking this feature to take a feat of your choice instead." in their ASI feature, so they can't take feats.

Which is interesting since the "sidekicks" are based on the old 3e "generic" classes. The Warrior was nothing but feats. Which actually made it better than the 3e Fighter, IMO.

[Psyren]

I'd argue that this doesn't strictly follow from the text as written. I'll agree that was probably the intent, but because the Feat rules were written before sidekicks were a thing it really just doesn't specify.

That's the problem though, sidekicks don't specify about their ASI feature but they do specify that sidekicks are NPCs. The feat rule meanwhile is in the PHB, therefore for PCs.

[Anonymouswizard]

Feats are an OPTIONAL rule. Why is it so damn difficult to understand, even after so many years of 5th edition? Of course the ASI feature doesn't allow feats by default. It's the OPTIONAL rule that allows them. :smallamused:

And assuming you are using:

The OPTIONAL rule of Feats, and
The OPTIONAL rule of sidekicks

You have to decide how the two options interact. Because the core rulebook didn't explicitly note the optional rule in ASIs when Sidekicks were released, but D&D Beyond suggests that errata has changed that, it becomes more confusing.

Honestly IMO the addition is a good thing. But we should probably look at what the ASI feature said when the option was released.


Which is interesting since the "sidekicks" are based on the old 3e "generic" classes. The Warrior was nothing but feats. Which actually made it better than the 3e Fighter, IMO.

The Warrior got:
d8 hit dice
2 skill points/level
Full BAB
Nothing else

It's literally the Fighter but worse.

Are you getting confused with the Munchkin d20 Warrior? It was the Fighter but IIRC got a Feat at every level and a bigger hot die.


That's the problem though, sidekicks don't specify about their ASI feature but they do specify that sidekicks are NPCs. The feat rule meanwhile is in the PHB, therefore for PCs.

If NPCs can have classes (a PC thing in the PC book) and mundane equipment (a PC thing in the PC book) I see no reason why they can't have Feats.

[Captain Cap]

That's the problem though, sidekicks don't specify about their ASI feature but they do specify that sidekicks are NPCs.
That's not true, the section explicitly suggests the possibility for a sidekick to be a player character:

• A player plays the sidekick as their second character—ideal when you have only one or two players.
• A player plays the sidekick as their only character—ideal for a player who wants a character who's simpler than a typical player character.

[Arkhios]

And assuming you are using:

The OPTIONAL rule of Feats, and
The OPTIONAL rule of sidekicks

You have to decide how the two options interact. Because the core rulebook didn't explicitly note the optional rule in ASIs when Sidekicks were released, but D&D Beyond suggests that errata has changed that, it becomes more confusing.

Honestly IMO the addition is a good thing. But we should probably look at what the ASI feature said when the option was released.


Word for word quote from the Feats section:
"At certain levels, your class gives you the Ability Score Improvement feature. Using the optional feats rule, you can forgo taking that feature to take a feat of your choice instead. You can take each feat only once, unless the feat's description says otherwise."


Word for word quote from the Sidekicks section:
"When you create a sidekick, you choose the class it will have for the rest of its career*: Expert, Spellcaster, or Warrior. If a sidekick class contains a choice, you may make the choice or let the players make it."

I'd say it's quite self-evident that yes, you can take a feat as a sidekick (assuming, of course, that both optional rules are in use; which may or might not be the case)

However, regarding the rest of this topic, Rules As Written, you *can't multiclass between Expert, Spellcaster, or Warrior. Rules As Fun though, I don't see a problem in it, but really that's up to your DM.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'd say it's quite self-evident that yes, you can take a feat as a sidekick (assuming, of course, that both optional rules are in use; which may or might not be the case)

And we wouldn't be having this discussion if the text of ASIs had always been the better, current version.


However, regarding the rest of this topic, Rules As Written, you *can't multiclass between Expert, Spellcaster, or Warrior. Rules As Fun though, I don't see a problem in it, but really that's up to your DM.

Yeah, and on the RAF angle, anybody who'd allow this exploit would likely just let your squid Sidekick be a Spellcaster without a feat.

[animorte]

There are enough speaking 1/2 CR (or less) monsters to allow one to have or play a spell caster sidekick. I’ve written all the 1/2 CR (or less) monsters down, each with their book, page number, and whether or not they could speak. Don’t have it at the moment though.

Waiving the verbal component of casting spells could be strong. There’s a reason subtle spell, war caster, and spell focus exists. That being said, if I were to allow this, I would find some other restriction to make up for it. Maybe you’re never allowed to hold anything in your hands while casting (including a spell focus). You needs hand free for, you know, sign language (and each language has its own). Joke’s on you, I don’t have hands!

Of course all of that is irrelevant to why the Expert is also required the ability to speak. Though it does make sense that a lot of these would make more sense as some sort of humanoid to properly wield weapons and tools, etc.

It does state in each sidekick class something to the effect of, “if it is a humanoid and has weapons in its stat block…”

Also kind of surprised to see a conversation about sidekicks. Any time I’ve mentioned them they seem like taboo around here, but I’ll just appreciate it. I love them.

[Anonymouswizard]

Waiving the verbal component of casting spells could be strong. There’s a reason subtle spell, war caster, and spell focus exists.

Magibear, the greatest wizard in the forest, would like to point out that they uses all spell components, thank you very much. They is, of course, Magibear, not some kind of knock-off Psibear.

Magibear would like to ask if you have any pearls before their Tongues spell runs out

[Yakk]

... why are people arguing about optional rules applied to optional rules in order to get a sidekick to change classes?

I mean, it is a sidekick. If the DM wants it to become an expert, it can. Otherwise, it can't. Are there actually DMs who are more likely to let a sidekick warrior badger become a spellcaster sidekick if you can use an ASI at warrior 4 to teach them hobgoblin?

If so, are they here?

[paladinn]

The Warrior got:
d8 hit dice
2 skill points/level
Full BAB
Nothing else

It's literally the Fighter but worse.

Are you getting confused with the Munchkin d20 Warrior? It was the Fighter but IIRC got a Feat at every level and a bigger hot die.

Whoops. I was thinking of the 3e Warrior. And I think the original sidekick UA warrior got d10 too. My bad.

The 3e Warrior was a clone of the Fighter except it wasn't limited to fighter bonus feats. Literally any feat and most class features (that were converted to feats) could be used. Pretty cool really.

[Psyren]

If NPCs can have classes (a PC thing in the PC book) and mundane equipment (a PC thing in the PC book) I see no reason why they can't have Feats.

I'm not saying they can't, but that the PC controlling the sidekick shouldn't expect them, even in a game that allows PCs to trade their ASIs for feats. In other words, talk to your DM.


That's not true, the section explicitly suggests the possibility for a sidekick to be a player character:

It is true. First sentence:


This section provides a straightforward way to add a special NPC - called a sidekick - to the group of adventurers.

And even in the scenarios you describe, where it can be treated as a player character (secondary character for 1-2 PCs, or replacing a PC entirely), that's not really what the OP is describing. It sounds more like they're just adding a sidekick to an already-full party.

[Captain Cap]

It is true. First sentence:

This section provides a straightforward way to add a special NPC - called a sidekick - to the group of adventurers.
Yes, you can you those rules, like you can use normal class levels (as written in the DMG), to make NPCs special, but nowhere is written that they are limited to NPCs, and in fact Sidekicks can explicitly be PCs, that is characters played by players.


And even in the scenarios you describe, where it can be treated as a player character (secondary character for 1-2 PCs, or replacing a PC entirely), that's not really what the OP is describing. It sounds more like they're just adding a sidekick to an already-full party.
To be fair, wouldn't an NPC Sidekick be under DM's authority? In the sense that class and stats should be up to them by default, if the Sidekick isn't a PC.

[Nod_Hero]

Sidekicks don't have "Using the optional feats rule, you can forgo taking this feature to take a feat of your choice instead." in their ASI feature, so they can't take feats.

From my post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25138390&postcount=35) over a year ago:

I'd definitely say Sidekicks can take feats. Bold emphasis mine:


At certain levels, your class gives you the Ability Score Improvement feature. Using the optional feats rule, you can forgo taking that feature to take a feat of your choice instead.


When you create a sidekick, you choose the class it will have for the rest of its career: Expert, Spellcaster, or Warrior, each of which is detailed below.



Whenever the sidekick gains the Ability Score Improvement feature

[ProsecutorGodot]

From my post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25138390&postcount=35) over a year ago:

I'd definitely say Sidekicks can take feats. Bold emphasis mine:

From my post, just a few days ago.

Huh, it's been so long since I opened a physical copy. Looks like that's a change DND Beyond makes.

In that case I don't see why you couldn't.

It was a mistake, though it's a bit baffling to me exactly how many people enter a thread, find the first comment they disagree with and rush to comment on it without reading further.

[Psyren]

Yes, you can you those rules, like you can use normal class levels (as written in the DMG), to make NPCs special, but nowhere is written that they are limited to NPCs, and in fact Sidekicks can explicitly be PCs, that is characters played by players.

They are played by characters but not built by them. That I think is the crucial difference here. The "You" in the Sidekick section is very clearly referring to the DM (e.g. "you decide who plays the sidekick - the player/s vs. you"), while the "You" in the feats section is referring to the players.

And again, I'm not saying feats for sidekicks are in any way forbidden, just that they shouldn't be assumed/expected either.

[Captain Cap]

They are played by characters but not built by them. That I think is the crucial difference here. The "You" in the Sidekick section is very clearly referring to the DM (e.g. "you decide who plays the sidekick - the player/s vs. you"), while the "You" in the feats section is referring to the players.
Okay, so, since the feat section "You" refers to the players, once the character is built and passed over to a player, when it levels up is up to the player decide what to do with the ASI.

[Anonymouswizard]

Whoops. I was thinking of the 3e Warrior. And I think the original sidekick UA warrior got d10 too. My bad.

The 3e Warrior was a clone of the Fighter except it wasn't limited to fighter bonus feats. Literally any feat and most class features (that were converted to feats) could be used. Pretty cool really.

Also my mistake, I got confused between generic and NPC classes, because Sidekicks fill the role of both.

Yes, there are at least three 3e classes called Warrior.

[Psyren]

Okay, so, since the feat section "You" refers to the players, once the character is built and passed over to a player, when it levels up is up to the player decide what to do with the ASI.

"The players play the sidekick" does not mean they get to make build choices for it. It's still an NPC, just one whose control you can assign out.

[Captain Cap]

"The players play the sidekick" does not mean they get to make build choices for it. It's still an NPC, just one whose control you can assign out.
A character played by a player is by definition not a Not-Player Character. And if it's the player's primary character (of course, if the DM let them play a Sidekick), there's no reason whatsoever for it not to follow the rules for primary characters.

[ProsecutorGodot]

A character played by a player is by definition not a Not-Player Character. And if it's the player's primary character (of course, if the DM let them play a Sidekick), there's no reason whatsoever for it not to follow the rules for primary characters.

Expanding on this, "Because it's in the phb" is also not a great argument. Do we really want to suggest that the DM can't or shouldn't follow those rules as well?

If we're picking apart the usage of "you" in this context, I'd argue it refers to whoever is choosing, not between player and DM.

[stoutstien]

... why are people arguing about optional rules applied to optional rules in order to get a sidekick to change classes?

I mean, it is a sidekick. If the DM wants it to become an expert, it can. Otherwise, it can't. Are there actually DMs who are more likely to let a sidekick warrior badger become a spellcaster sidekick if you can use an ASI at warrior 4 to teach them hobgoblin?

If so, are they here?

Its actually an optional rule, in an optional book, combined with an optional rule from another book, that is also in and of itself completely optional.

The joys of opt in style game design.

[Psyren]

Expanding on this, "Because it's in the phb" is also not a great argument. Do we really want to suggest that the DM can't or shouldn't follow those rules as well?

If we're picking apart the usage of "you" in this context, I'd argue it refers to whoever is choosing, not between player and DM.

The DM certainly can do whatever they want. The player should not expect that the DM will hand them a sidekick with feats just because PCs can take feats, even if both sidekicks and feats are in the same game.

[ftafp]

Considering the neither the artificer's ASI feature from the same book nor the ASI features from the PHB mention feats either, there's literally zero reason to assume Sidekicks can't get feats with their ASIs. Remember, feats are an optional rule after all. All 5e books still consider them as such

A bigger issue is that sidekick classes don't have rules for multiclassing into them. However, nothing strictly forbids a sidekick from multiclassing into a PC class, you could for example have a warhorse warrior 1/druid 19

[Arkhios]

Considering the neither the artificer's ASI feature from the same book nor the ASI features from the PHB mention feats either, there's literally zero reason to assume Sidekicks can't get feats with their ASIs. Remember, feats are an optional rule after all. All 5e books still consider them as such

A bigger issue is that sidekick classes don't have rules for multiclassing into them. However, nothing strictly forbids a sidekick from multiclassing into a PC class, you could for example have a warhorse warrior 1/druid 19

Well, actually...


Word for word quote from the Sidekicks section:
"When you create a sidekick, you choose the class it will have for the rest of its career: Expert, Spellcaster, or Warrior. If a sidekick class contains a choice, you may make the choice or let the players make it."

The rules text strictly tells us that a sidekick will have the chosen class for the rest of its career. Which explicitly includes multiclassing of all kinds. A sidekick will have only one class, from the start to the very end.

[animorte]

The rules text strictly tells us that a sidekick will have the chosen class for the rest of its career.

My sidekick just retired from its career as a Warrior and picked up a part time job as a Wizard to pass the time. :smallamused:

[Psyren]

To reiterate - if your DM wants to let you control a sidekick's build and allow it to multiclass, obviously they are king of the castle. My only point is that the player should have that conversation and not assume anything, or feel entitled to anything.

[ProsecutorGodot]

To reiterate - if your DM wants to let you control a sidekick's build and allow it to multiclass, obviously they are king of the castle. My only point is that the player should have that conversation and not assume anything, or feel entitled to anything.

Which I think was covered in the OP nicely.

[Psyren]

Which I think was covered in the OP nicely.

Even if I agreed with that, it bears repeating.

[ftafp]

Well, actually...



The rules text strictly tells us that a sidekick will have the chosen class for the rest of its career. Which explicitly includes multiclassing of all kinds. A sidekick will have only one class, from the start to the very end.

If a fighter multiclasses into a wizard they're still a fighter for the rest of their career. multiclassing doesn't remove your old class, it just adds a new one.

also recall that multiclassing is ALSO a variant rule

[Anonymouswizard]

also recall that multiclassing is ALSO a variant rule

Recall that most players on this forum tend towards a particular set of assumptions where everything in the PhB is fair game, and optional/variant rules are assumed to be in play. ESPECIALLY Feats and Multiclassing

You might as well be telling the Royal Knitting Association that nothing is forcing them to pick up a pair of needles

[Yakk]

Regardless of what is in play, my point is that this is a pile of layers of optional rules stitched together.

The right answer is "ask your DM", not "but I can make my sidekick take linguist and become a spellcaster".

If your DM is ok with your sidekick becoming a spellcaster, great. Might not even require the feat.

If your DM is not, then no.

And if you are the DM, what exactly is the point of requiring the linguist feat if you do want to allow the sidekick to become a spellcaster? Do you want the horse to learn to talk via a feat? Maybe, whatever, have fun!