D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Talks Sidekicks

[MechaTarrasque]

At https://www.sageadvice.eu/2019/01/2...ke-sense-for-the-sidekick-to-be-lvl-11-right/, Jeremy Crawford has a winding conversation about sidekicks. To me the big points were:

"The sidekick rules were popular enough that I'm tinkering with a new version, in which your sidekick's starting level equals your level."

"If a group has anxiety about their NPC companions doing well, I recommend not having NPC companions."

"There is an important distinction between an NPC controlled by the DM and an NPC controlled by the players.

The DM-controlled character/critter is rarely viewed as a party member.

But a player-controlled character/critter is often just as loved as a PC."

In response to "Yes, strong sidekicks can work if player controlled. But they're basically a second character then, more of a hireling or follower from old ad&d, than a non-player character" his answer was "Agreed. You just described the new sidekicks."

"If the players are using the stat block of a character/critter, that's what I mean by player control. Sometimes that turns into co-control with the DM. Either way, they're invested."

I figured the sidekicks might end up in the nautical book (crew as sidekicks, who wants their PC to be swabbing the deck?), but if he is tinkering with it, the sidekicks might show up later.

 

[Henry]

Weirdly enough, I've never found this to be the case ("The DM-controlled character/critter is rarely viewed as a party member...a player-controlled character/critter is often just as loved as a PC."). If a player is playing them, they are usually an extra set of hands on a piece of paper; However, DM controlled NPCs have frequently captured hearts and minds at the table - just ask some of the Critical Role cast, who spent something like an hour just taking fellow members to go talk to an NPC because the DM had brought them to life so vibrantly.

In my Waterdeep game, one of the players' PC pulled a nasty trick on an NPC, and the other players actually got a little mad at him because of how badly they had hurt the NPC's feelings. I had the NPC whine and cry at the table and everything, and I don't think they were prepared for that.

 

[Dausuul]

Weirdly enough, I've never found this to be the case ("The DM-controlled character/critter is rarely viewed as a party member...a player-controlled character/critter is often just as loved as a PC."). If a player is playing them, they are usually an extra set of hands on a piece of paper; However, DM controlled NPCs have frequently captured hearts and minds at the table - just ask some of the Critical Role cast, who spent something like an hour just taking fellow members to go talk to an NPC because the DM had brought them to life so vibrantly.

In my Waterdeep game, one of the players' PC pulled a nasty trick on an NPC, and the other players actually got a little mad at him because of how badly they had hurt the NPC's feelings. I had the NPC whine and cry at the table and everything, and I don't think they were prepared for that.

Yeah, that's my experience too. In rare cases, a player might become attached to a sidekick they created and run, but mostly their hands are too full with their actual PCs to give the spear-carrier much character development. But every campaign has certain NPCs that the party latches onto and loves.

 

[Blue]

Yeah, that's my experience too. In rare cases, a player might become attached to a sidekick they created and run, but mostly their hands are too full with their actual PCs to give the spear-carrier much character development. But every campaign has certain NPCs that the party latches onto and loves.

Agreed. NPCs can become favored of PCs, but usually a player is too busy with their primary PC to give the time at table to strongly develop bonds between their sidekick and other PCs.

Not that it can't happen - back in AD&D 2nd my swashbuckler-y urban Paladin had a intelligent eagle mount who stole the show. Became more memorable then the primary character, and she was pretty memorable. Ah, back when 10 hours was a short gaming day.

 

[guachi]

My view of sidekicks, and it's what I put in the feedback, was that they were unnecessarily complicated.

I already have the basics of the classes memorized but sidekicks required me to remember new classes that were *almost* like actual classes - enough similarity that it was easy to confuse what the features were.

I liked the idea of a sidekick, but not the execution.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I was going to wager if he was going to name Mearls or Perkins, but I see I misinterpreted the topic for this thread.

(My money was on Mearls, btw.)

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, that's my experience too. In rare cases, a player might become attached to a sidekick they created and run, but mostly their hands are too full with their actual PCs to give the spear-carrier much character development.

There's also something proprietary about a specific PC's companion. No matter how personable they are, they'll tend to feel like that player's PC's friend rather than a friend of the party.

 

[jgsugden]

The appreciation for secondary party members has, historically in my experiences at least, been more a factor of how they were played than who played them.

In the old days we had a party with no healing except an NPC cleric named Ontzlake that the DM ran. It provided the DM with a conduit to work in adventure hooks, redirect when the game was going off course and to provide him with his adventuring fix... he loved to play, but only had time for one game which he ran as a DM.

In the middle days, when Sunless Citadel was first released, my group adopted Meepo. The DM never advanced him in levels, but he adventured (hid) with us for nearly a year in real time... until he was kidnapped and murdered by an enemy force. We avenged him, but I consider that year of adventurig to be amongst the best D&D I've ever had the priviledge to join, and it was due in no small part to the presence of a DM run Meepo.

I've had multiple experiences with multi-PC games where each player played two characters. Ther was good (characters in the game designed with secrets and ties), and bad parts (optimizing them together or using one to optimize the other). In the end, those games tended to have less, not more, role playing as people were juggling too many stats, too many actions, and too many concerns for their PCs to really fully embody either.

To me, the sidekick needs to be an NPC that the player can direct as a guiding force, but that the DM can grab at any moment and for which the DM is the ultimate controller. The DM should be the one to know the sidekicks secrets, the sidekicks hidden fears, the sidekicks innermost desires...

They also need to fix those rules so that a Warlock sidekick spellcaster doesn't get all of those warlock spells. It is not right to give a sidekick something mechanically that a PC can't possibly have when they emulate the same concept.

 

[Pauln6]

The problem with the advance of the editions is hp proliferation. In 1e, your henchmen didn't need masses of hp to help out and survive. The principal need in 5e is to make sure they can both survive and dish out enough damage to be relevant to the xp budget when the DM is encounter building. Beyond that, it's their personality that makes them endearing. If they are filling a missing niche then they may need extra abilities but they could be bolted on to the basic henchman chassis.

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem with the advance of the editions is hp proliferation. In 1e, your henchmen didn't need masses of hp to help out and survive. The principal need in 5e is to make sure they can both survive and dish out enough damage to be relevant to the xp budget when the DM is encounter building. Beyond that, it's their personality that makes them endearing. If they are filling a missing niche then they may need extra abilities but they could be bolted on to the basic henchman chassis.

I would say that just about the only thing a henchman needs is hit points.

Why? Because you can't keep something alive unless it has level-appropriate hit points.

That it doesn't do much is not a large problem - leave that to the player characters, it's their show.

Don't forget: just standing there, soaking damage, is not nothing. In fact, making the monsters distribute their attacks over more party members is a huge deal, and a large help to the party. (If the players don't want to bring along henchmen unless they deal the same damage as themselves they're simply wrong - that's an unreasonable expectation, and my message to those players is simply "so don't bring any")

PS. You can't expect players to bring along NPCs that doesn't have hit points. That's just not how 5th edition works. There are very few ways to protect your allies above a very small number of limited "attack redirection" abilities. You can't even stand in the way in many cases (since the rules for opportunity attacks generously allow you to move around your foe freely), unless you have defensive terrain. (This is a big part of why the PHB Beastmaster is a failed subclass design)

That you didn't need hp before is a lost battle. That ship has sailed.