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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7625121" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>You mean Rogues? Their damage scaling mostly comes in the form of Sneak Attack, so maybe Sneak Attack dice?</p><p></p><p></p><p>All damage dealing cantrips scale, so if you haven’t taken any damage dealing cantrips, I wouldn’t exactly describe that as “free.”</p><p></p><p></p><p>Extra attacks and cantrip scaling are absolutely comparable, they fill the exact same role in the system math, multiplying the character’s average damage per round at specific level intervals. Are Sidekicks comparable to that? In some ways. Two attacks from a fighter is certainly comparable to one attack from a fighter and one attack from her warrior Sidekick. One 2d8 cantrip is comparable to two 1d8 cantrips. Obviously Sidekicks can do more than just damage, so in other ways that isn’t comparable, but I also think that’s kind of the point. If you want to run a game where the PCs attract followers as class features, you want them to do more than damage. Replacing Extra Attack and cantrip scaling is just to keep the party’s expected damage output in line in such a game.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Why not mandatory?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I’m not sure that some characters getting Sidekicks and not others is any more unfair than some characters getting spells and not others, or some characters getting to throw a fistful of d6 at any enemy one of their allies is adjacent to and not others. Class-based design inherently gives certain features to certain characters and restricts those features from other characters. That said, giving everyone Sidekicks might still be the way to go if you wanted to do this, and in that case I think it’s safe to assume that DMs who are interested in the option are comfortable with doubling the party size. Otherwise they just wouldn’t use this house rule.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed! Of course, the fact that WotC considers them simple enough that they could be played alongside a full PC by a single player who may be playing for the first time was what gave me the idea that they might be simple enough for all players in a party bigger than 1 to control their own Sidekick.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I’m not suggesting this as something players opt-into. I’m suggesting it as a rules hack, where certain classes (possibly all classes, if that’s what seems like the best option) get Sidekicks as inherent class features at certain levels. Since that would dramatically increase party damage output, I figured putting the Sidekick feature at the levels where a similar jump in damage output is already expected, and replacing the source of expected damage increase by the default rules, would be the easiest way to implement the hack.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7625121, member: 6779196"] You mean Rogues? Their damage scaling mostly comes in the form of Sneak Attack, so maybe Sneak Attack dice? All damage dealing cantrips scale, so if you haven’t taken any damage dealing cantrips, I wouldn’t exactly describe that as “free.” Extra attacks and cantrip scaling are absolutely comparable, they fill the exact same role in the system math, multiplying the character’s average damage per round at specific level intervals. Are Sidekicks comparable to that? In some ways. Two attacks from a fighter is certainly comparable to one attack from a fighter and one attack from her warrior Sidekick. One 2d8 cantrip is comparable to two 1d8 cantrips. Obviously Sidekicks can do more than just damage, so in other ways that isn’t comparable, but I also think that’s kind of the point. If you want to run a game where the PCs attract followers as class features, you want them to do more than damage. Replacing Extra Attack and cantrip scaling is just to keep the party’s expected damage output in line in such a game. Why not mandatory? I’m not sure that some characters getting Sidekicks and not others is any more unfair than some characters getting spells and not others, or some characters getting to throw a fistful of d6 at any enemy one of their allies is adjacent to and not others. Class-based design inherently gives certain features to certain characters and restricts those features from other characters. That said, giving everyone Sidekicks might still be the way to go if you wanted to do this, and in that case I think it’s safe to assume that DMs who are interested in the option are comfortable with doubling the party size. Otherwise they just wouldn’t use this house rule. Agreed! Of course, the fact that WotC considers them simple enough that they could be played alongside a full PC by a single player who may be playing for the first time was what gave me the idea that they might be simple enough for all players in a party bigger than 1 to control their own Sidekick. I’m not suggesting this as something players opt-into. I’m suggesting it as a rules hack, where certain classes (possibly all classes, if that’s what seems like the best option) get Sidekicks as inherent class features at certain levels. Since that would dramatically increase party damage output, I figured putting the Sidekick feature at the levels where a similar jump in damage output is already expected, and replacing the source of expected damage increase by the default rules, would be the easiest way to implement the hack. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sidekicks instead of Extra Attack?
Top