Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sidekicks instead of Extra Attack?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7624956" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>What about characters who gain no extra attacks nor cantrips? Also, if all my cantrips don't scale, do I get my sidekick for free? The main problem here is that extra attacks and cantrips are not comparable with each other, and they are not comparable with sidekicks either.</p><p></p><p>In 3e there was a core feat, although in the DMG, called "Leadership", which granted you a cohort (plus various followers) of a lower level. If a DM wanted to give sidekicks as a character option (not mandatory), my first idea would be to consider it cost a feat, because at least a feat has the same cost for everyone (even if two classes get 1-2 more feats than others, in practical terms it matters little). Still I couldn't say if a sidekick is worth less or more than a feat...</p><p></p><p>I don't even know what is the final version of sidekicks in the upcoming book, but in general I think it would be best not to try and see as something that is part of the character: if you do that, immediately the game is seen unfair if some player get a sidekick for their PC and others do not. So then everyone will want a sidekick, and the DM has double the amount of characters in the game. </p><p></p><p>The <em>real</em> point of sidekicks is explicitly to help a party with too few PCs (in the Essentials it seems it's even suggested only for "solo" games), without the complexity of a whole second PC for the player.</p><p></p><p>Instead, I have simply allowed experienced players to play 2 PCs at the table, when the number of players is small. It's not a privilege for such player, it's a burden to manage two whole characters, each one takes a single share of treasure and XP. Sidekicks can help lessen the burden, especially if the sidekick is chosen to be a spellcaster in order to fill a gap in the party's capability.</p><p></p><p>Since in both cases the motivation is to increase the <em>party</em>, there is no need to have the player pay a price by reducing the first PC's features.</p><p></p><p>Make sidekicks a character option, and competitive players will look at it as an opportunity to be better than other players, if the "price" is right. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The problem is that it's very hard to set the price right. As I said, I would start with something that at least is shared among all classes: feats, proficiency bonus or even XP. Thinking of sidekicks in terms of action economy is interesting, but problematic once you consider that some sidekicks may be useful only in combat while others may be designed to be maximally useful outside of it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 7624956, member: 1465"] What about characters who gain no extra attacks nor cantrips? Also, if all my cantrips don't scale, do I get my sidekick for free? The main problem here is that extra attacks and cantrips are not comparable with each other, and they are not comparable with sidekicks either. In 3e there was a core feat, although in the DMG, called "Leadership", which granted you a cohort (plus various followers) of a lower level. If a DM wanted to give sidekicks as a character option (not mandatory), my first idea would be to consider it cost a feat, because at least a feat has the same cost for everyone (even if two classes get 1-2 more feats than others, in practical terms it matters little). Still I couldn't say if a sidekick is worth less or more than a feat... I don't even know what is the final version of sidekicks in the upcoming book, but in general I think it would be best not to try and see as something that is part of the character: if you do that, immediately the game is seen unfair if some player get a sidekick for their PC and others do not. So then everyone will want a sidekick, and the DM has double the amount of characters in the game. The [I]real[/I] point of sidekicks is explicitly to help a party with too few PCs (in the Essentials it seems it's even suggested only for "solo" games), without the complexity of a whole second PC for the player. Instead, I have simply allowed experienced players to play 2 PCs at the table, when the number of players is small. It's not a privilege for such player, it's a burden to manage two whole characters, each one takes a single share of treasure and XP. Sidekicks can help lessen the burden, especially if the sidekick is chosen to be a spellcaster in order to fill a gap in the party's capability. Since in both cases the motivation is to increase the [I]party[/I], there is no need to have the player pay a price by reducing the first PC's features. Make sidekicks a character option, and competitive players will look at it as an opportunity to be better than other players, if the "price" is right. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The problem is that it's very hard to set the price right. As I said, I would start with something that at least is shared among all classes: feats, proficiency bonus or even XP. Thinking of sidekicks in terms of action economy is interesting, but problematic once you consider that some sidekicks may be useful only in combat while others may be designed to be maximally useful outside of it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sidekicks instead of Extra Attack?
Top