D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Talks Sidekicks

[jgsugden]

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...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.

I'm saying they have problems. You're saying, I'm not forced to use them. That overlooks a few things:

1.) Once presented as an option, players often feel entitled to the option. It may not be right, but it happens.
2.) A DM may allow it (for whatever reason) for one or more players and it might cause the game to suffer, hurting other players' experiences through no choice of their own.

 

[Pauln6]

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.

Ha ha. To be fair, traps could kill anybody! Tomb of Horrors? Eek! I don't miss save or die in 5e.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

Not entirely. Fifth edition (nominally) supports many different healing options, and if you can reel the healing back far enough, then you can start having meaningful encounters with the sorts of lower-level enemies that won't one-shot an NPC.

HP are only such an important combat metric, because characters have so much free healing that it's assumed they'll enter every fight at full health, so enemies need to be powerful enough that they can get through all of that health in one fight, if there's going to be any tension at all. If you nix the healing, then it changes that default assumption by enough that henchfolk remain helpful, even without bloating their HP.

 

[Azzy]

I'm saying they have problems. You're saying, I'm not forced to use them. That overlooks a few things:

1.) Once presented as an option, players often feel entitled to the option. It may not be right, but it happens.
2.) A DM may allow it (for whatever reason) for one or more players and it might cause the game to suffer, hurting other players' experiences through no choice of their own.

So, no one else should have these options because of this? Sorry, no.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

This is true.

 

[Pauln6]

This is true.

I guess my group just had better working conditions than yours.Admittedly, most of my hirelings were killed by the Dragon Prophet Aulicus while trying to escape the Black Brotherhood through the Vast Swamp but, you know, a frickin' dragon!

 

[Imaro]

I'm saying they have problems. You're saying, I'm not forced to use them. That overlooks a few things:

No I'm saying the problems you are citing seem to be problems with your group and how they choose to use a tool vs a problem with the actual tool.

In other words it's like claiming that hammers are problematic because some people drop them on their feet or miss and hit their thumbs... those aren't problems with a hammer though that's a problem with how you are choosing to use/handle the tool. If you are incapable of using a hammer without dropping it on your foot or banging your thumb, well then you probably shouldn't use a hammer... those who are capable however, will find the hammer an advantageous tool to use.

1.) Once presented as an option, players often feel entitled to the option. It may not be right, but it happens.
2.) A DM may allow it (for whatever reason) for one or more players and it might cause the game to suffer, hurting other players' experiences through no choice of their own.

1. This edition has made leaps and bounds to re-empower DM's but there is a point where you have to actually take responsibility for your game as a DM. Do you use every optional rule in the DMG, UA and 3rd party products? If not why not?

2. If it's really causing the game to suffer discuss the issue with your DM... any DM worth playing with is going to want to make the game as fun as possible for as many people as possible.

I don't see how either of these group problems are a reason not to do sidekicks for 5e as a whole??

 

[SkidAce]

I know right...?

Dragons....sheesh....

 

[jgsugden]

So, no one else should have these options because of this? Sorry, no.

It is a problem that isn't unique to a single group. The problems I have described are universal costs that every game that allows these will face, and I will note are real problems that will detract from the game for the players that do not get sidekicks.

They're generally bad for the game.

No I'm saying the problems you are citing seem to be problems with your group and how they choose to use a tool vs a problem with the actual tool.

No, this is more of a defective design in the hammer. Most of the costs of having this available apply to all games that allow them. Slower game. Less focus by players on their characters.

In other words it's like claiming that hammers are problematic because some people drop them on their feet or miss and hit their thumbs... those aren't problems with a hammer though that's a problem with how you are choosing to use/handle the tool...

But if the head of the hammer falls off constantly - smacking into people, making it slower to hammer things in - and it is a design flaw - then it is something quite different.

Slower play.
Diluted focus on characters.
Does just one player get a sidekick or everyone?
Optimization problems magnified.

Some of those issues may not happen in every game. Some will.

If you'd like to explain how sidekicks do not slow play, dilute focus on characters, result in questions about who gets them and who does not, and runs the risk of expanding upon existing optimization challenges, I welcome the conversation.

 

[Imaro]

They're generally bad for the game.

No they are generally bad for your game.

No, this is more of a defective design in the hammer. Most of the costs of having this available apply to all games that allow them. Slower game. Less focus by players on their characters.

No they don't.

But if the head of the hammer falls off constantly - smacking into people, making it slower to hammer things in - and it is a design flaw - then it is something quite different.

Yes but that's not what you are presenting. You are presenting problems that arise because of the particular group and how it has chosen to use the tool.

Slower play.
Diluted focus on characters.
Does just one player get a sidekick or everyone?
Optimization problems magnified.

Some of those issues may not happen in every game. Some will.

And some groups won't experience any of them... You're basically stating here that they are not problems intrinsic to the nature of sidekicks when you say that some of the cited issues may not happen in every game.

If you'd like to explain how sidekicks do not slow play, dilute focus on characters, result in questions about who gets them and who does not, and runs the risk of expanding upon existing optimization challenges, I welcome the conversation.

Sure...

1. Are you claiming that it is impossible for some people to have a secondary character without an appreciable slowdown in combat time?

2. This is a choice. Having a secondary character does not inherently mean a diluted focus on one's main character.

3. The DM should decide this based on what is best for his group and if necessary a discussion with his players.

4. You're assuming optimization is taking place and that it is an issue in every game.... if it is (and in games that encourage high levels of optimization it won't be) that is a player issue and should be discussed (and resolved) between player and DM.