D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Talks Sidekicks

[Li Shenron]

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.

I agree completely...

Let's wait until the second iteration of Sidekicks, but IMHO it's a terrible idea to just design them as "slightly inferior" PC classes. If that's what you really want, you don't need "sidekick classes", just use PHB classes and make basic obvious choices (e.g. Champion Fighter with Defense fighting style, Wizard with iconic spells...).

The level of the sidekick should really just be a gaming group's preference, not a hard rule. Because if the level is too high (relative to the PCs) then it won't feel much of a sidekick, and if it is too low it might be too squishy. But how high is too high? For some group the same level as the PC is already too high to call it a sidekick, but others groups wouldn't mind a dumb Fighter bodyguard of higher level than you, and others yet won't tolerate even a close level and would want it maybe 3-4 levels below at least. If we all start to house rule the level, then why having a hard rule at all?

The UA article also had another critical miss: many of the new unique features in these sidekick classes are actually good. So it creates a situation where a player would actually want the PC to have some of these features, and will inevitably ask "why sidekicks can have these features, but not regular PCs"?

In my feedback, I suggested that these new features could be introduced as variant/alternative class features for PHB classes. Then all we really need is guidelines for (a) designing sidekicks using PHB classes + variant features, with suggestions on what to choose (with the purpose of keeping the complexity as low as wanted, so that sidekicks feel less than regular PCs) and (b) handle XP sharing and/or level advancement in a simple way but without hard rules.

 

[TwoSix]

To be honest, what I really want out of the sidekick system is less rules about henchmen/companions, and more simple classes with no decision points. I'd love to see the Spellcaster broken up into a Healer class, a Blaster class, and a Buffer class, with all the spells known choices already made, for example.

 

[jgsugden]

I really dislike what this says about the Beastmaster - the sidekick is pretty much universally superior to a beast animal companion. There is 'no cost' to having it while the Beastmaster gives up a lot.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I really dislike what this says about the Beastmaster - the sidekick is pretty much universally superior to a beast animal companion. There is 'no cost' to having it while the Beastmaster gives up a lot.

You automatically get an animal companion simply by virtue of playing a Beastmaster Ranger. You only get a sidekick if the DM specifically decides to grant you one.
(And it is quite possible that they would simply decide to allow your companion to use sidekick rules if they were running sidekicks in the game.)

 

[jgsugden]

You automatically get an animal companion simply by virtue of playing a Beastmaster Ranger. You only get a sidekick if the DM specifically decides to grant you one.

Understood, but assuming their non-use makes them irrelevant. The DM can also say, "No Beastmasters - I hate pets."

(And it is quite possible that they would simply decide to allow your companion to use sidekick rules if they were running sidekicks in the game.)

Maybe, but what about people that have a 5th level Beastmaster they've been playing for 5 months.. who suddenly see everyone else in the party pushing the DM to elevate that NPC into their sidekick.

I have no problem with them releasing 3 to 6 NPC classes that are intended to be used for "adventuring NPCs", but giving the NPCs to the players as sidekicks:

1.) Dilutes their focus on the character of their character(s).
2.) Allows for more potent optimization.
3.) Slows down the game.
4.) Creates jealously between players.

I've had great experiences with NPCs adventuring with the party, especially when they are acting at the direction of the characters (as opposed to being run by the players). I've rarely seen good things when players run multiple PCs.

 

[Mistwell]

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 heck they didn't!

Henchmen died a lot. It's why, if you got a reputation for your henchment dying, that it became more difficult to attract more of them.

 

[Imaro]

Understood, but assuming their non-use makes them irrelevant. The DM can also say, "No Beastmasters - I hate pets."Maybe, but what about people that have a 5th level Beastmaster they've been playing for 5 months.. who suddenly see everyone else in the party pushing the DM to elevate that NPC into their sidekick.

I think assumption of usage is the point... and the advantage of choosing a Beastmaster... if the DM says no Beastmasters well it's a moot point.

I have no problem with them releasing 3 to 6 NPC classes that are intended to be used for "adventuring NPCs", but giving the NPCs to the players as sidekicks:

1.) Dilutes their focus on the character of their character(s).
2.) Allows for more potent optimization.
3.) Slows down the game.
4.) Creates jealously between players.

I've had great experiences with NPCs adventuring with the party, especially when they are acting at the direction of the characters (as opposed to being run by the players). I've rarely seen good things when players run multiple PCs.

Yeah but this sounds like an issue with the overall concept of sidekicks... but they are optional and at the DM's discretion... As a DM if you don't think they would be a good fit for your game... why introduce them at all? On the other hand the fact that they are not a good fit for your game doesn't mean they shouldn't be available for other games.

 

[Krachek]

Sidekick are a good tools for game with one to 3 players. It is not an universal option.
Otherwise the npc slow down the game,

But we don’t need an official rule, simply pick any classes and don’t use archetype.
You got that way a decent npc without complexity. He will be a little edge under the pc.

 

[Pauln6]

The heck they didn't! Henchmen died a lot. It's why, if you got a reputation for your henchment dying, that it became more difficult to attract more of them.

Yeah basic level 0 henchmen were generally screwed but we had several level 5 fighters who survived just fine when the heroes were level 9 or 10 because the damage likely to be inflicted by monsters in one go was typically not too high. In 5e the damage inflicted by monsters can stack up very fast with multiple attacks per round. Sidekicks with limited damage mitigation options will likely still go down faster than PCs even if they are of equivalent level. I think sidekicks should be a level lower than the associated PC (minimum 1) like 3e cohorts.

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah basic level 0 henchmen were generally screwed but we had several level 5 fighters who survived just fine when the heroes were level 9 or 10 because the damage likely to be inflicted by monsters in one go was typically not too high. In 5e the damage inflicted by monsters can stack up very fast with multiple attacks per round. Sidekicks with limited damage mitigation options will likely still go down faster than PCs even if they are of equivalent level. I think sidekicks should be a level lower than the associated PC (minimum 1) like 3e cohorts.

Traps in AD&D could easily slay Henchmen, who were gaining XP at half the rate and who insisted on going on adventures anyway with the party.