D&D 5E Sidekicks UA vs Official rules- what's changed?

[Warforged DK]

The game I'm playing in has a sidekick, using the UA rules and I think we've made that creature a bit OP.
I'm wondering what the difference is between the UA rules and the official rules from the Essentials set, because I have some questions about a potential replacement character.

We're currently playing through Undermountain, and have a Nilbog Spellcaster as our sidekick. Holy crap that thing is difficult to hurt and probably OP for a Sidekick. We're friends with it because the character controlling the Nilbog convicned it that we'd be able to cause lots of chaos and murder stuff with us rather than with goblins.
And I suppose this is a question more for the DM than anywhere else, but would a human-shaped Fey creature also count as humanoid, if it doesn't have Humanoid keyword?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And I suppose this is a question more for the DM than anywhere else, but would a human-shaped Fey creature also count as humanoid, if it doesn't have Humanoid keyword?

That is a question for your DM, but if it's for the purpose of targeting it with spells like Hold Person I'd assume that the intention would be that it could be targeted.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Since Biscuit the mastiff is specifically mentioned in the UA, getting a fey sidekick seems possible--in other words, sidekicks aren't limited to humanoids, but they are supposed to have a base CR of 1 or less, so you are looking at things like satyrs, dryads (if you are just going to stay in the forest), and boggles. RAW you shouldn't give fey the bonus proficiencies that humanoid sidekicks get. RAI is more flexible (the DMG talks about celestial elves and dwarves in the Planes section, and I figure any of those could be a humanoid NPC class like a bandit or a scout). If you wanted to make an orc a fey, then I would give it the bonus proficiencies. I am not sure if I would allow it for satyrs or dryads, they already have a lot of goodies.

 

[Leatherhead]

It's OP cause it's a Nilbog.

Anyway, the rules changed so that you get a totally generic Warrior, Expert, or Spell Caster. And Casters get to pick from one of two spell lists, which are highly restricted and streamlined.

 

[Warforged DK]

Like I said, we have a Nilbog Spellcaster already, and the DM thinks its a bit powerful. Nilbog counts as humanoid, and it speaks a language, so Spellcaster it was. Consider that you need a DC 12 Charisma save when you target it for a damaging effect, otherwise be charmed, AND it can reduce incoming damage to 0 as a reaction, it's ridiculously difficult to harm. Its not an attack that targets the Nilbog that triggers the save, it's any effect which would damage the Nilbog, including Saves vs Spells. For a CR 1 creature, who can also cast Tasha's Hideous Laughter at will? it's enough to drive the DM nuts. I'm actually remorseful that I suggested it as our sidekick.

But I digress, the real question was about having a Quickling as a sidekick. Also a CR 1 creature, it is Fey, but not humanoid. If it were humanoid, it would get access to light armor and martial weapons and two tools as an Expert. Thereby improving it's AC from 16 to 19, with constant disadvantage to attacks against it, and moving from d4 daggers up to d6 Short sword or maybe even the ever-loving Rapier. With it's 3 attack multi-attack it would jump from 3d4+18 to 3d6 or 3d8+18. Oh, and it comes trained in all the DEX based skills and Perception already.

Sidekick rules can be broken pretty easily.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm sorry, but a Nilbog or Quickling sidekick sounds like it'd be about as much fun for the PCs as Bat-Mite was for Batman.

Which, I guess, depending on tone and style, might be a lotta fun, so, y'know, have at it if that's the case.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Anyway, the rules changed so that you get a totally generic Warrior, Expert, or Spell Caster. And Casters get to pick from one of two spell lists, which are highly restricted and streamlined.

The official rules seem to be a serious case of "Fun Detected: Terminate Immediately".

We've played with full-classed PC-style NPC "sidekicks" before in 5E and they don't overshadow anyone (particularly if you keep them one level lower than everyone else), so I find WotC's "cautious" attitude here pretty bizarre and redolent of one of those kind of faintly mean-spirited and mealy-mouthed DMs who runs a very dull game very much RAW not RAI.

 

[Warforged DK]

I think the use any CR 1 creature rule was easily abused, much like my group has done with the Nilbog.
But a generic sidekick isn't that much fun either.
I'm going to be running a game for my 7 yr old son, and he wants to be a Druid with a small treefolk sidekick, so he can use his Wildlings minis I got him a few months ago. I'll probably just draft up a semi-dryad warrior to be his sidekick, rather than just a generic one.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think the use any CR 1 creature rule was easily abused, much like my group has done with the Nilbog.
But a generic sidekick isn't that much fun either.
I'm going to be running a game for my 7 yr old son, and he wants to be a Druid with a small treefolk sidekick, so he can use his Wildlings minis I got him a few months ago. I'll probably just draft up a semi-dryad warrior to be his sidekick, rather than just a generic one.

Oh yeah, if a rule exists, and gives players a lot of choice, people will dig through rulebooks to find something suitably outrageous!

And yeah that sounds much nicer than some generic Elf Fighting-Man or whatever!