Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks

New playtest material fro WoTC.

https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf

I think this would be my DM's nightmare if implemented.

 

[jamesstreissand]

It's a bulk of an entire character, not any player character.

The difference between a champion and a multi-caster is pretty significant, but there's no reason why any non-player character should approach even the complexity of a champion. We're literally talking about a character that doesn't have a player. Nobody benefits from it having more complexity than is absolutely necessary. Complexity only adds to the difficulty of the DM running the character, on top of everything else they have to do.

I can see you're not listening (which is fine, this is a public forum), but since other people get to read this, I'll put it another way for their benefit.

A champion fighter of any given level fits into a 3x5 card or less. There is no difference in complexity between running it, or a hobgoblin, for instance.

The fact a champion can be played by someone at your table has zero weight gauging its complexity, much like any creature from the monster manual. You could easily have a table of players running creatures from the monster manual; it wouldn't have any bearing on whether the statblock could be considered complex.

The complexity of the statblock can be placed on a low-high scale based on I think are some good measurements:
- How many different possible actions does the creature have?
- Can it use more than 1 in a given turn?
- Does it have to frequently compare a variety of actions to use? Or is there a clear default?
- Does it have any interrupts (things it can do on other creatures' turns)?
- If so, how many?
- How many rolls does it take to adjudicate what those interrupts do?
- Can the creature inflict status effects?

There are doubtless more, but these are the few I could come up with off the top of my head.
The champion places "Low" on all of them.

 

[Nellisir]

I'd like to see a little more attention & clarification to the roles of familiars, paladin's mounts, and companion animals (ranger, druid, whatever) vs sidekicks. Allowing a familiar (for example) to be a sidekick dilutes the concept of the familiar. Those should all be equally sturdy as a sidekick, but beast companions, mounts, and familiars all exist as a component of a character. Sidekicks are independent entities.

Also, I think it's useful to differentiate between henchmen (sidekicks) and hirelings (stock NPCs). Bob7, the disposable sword, is a hireling with a stat block. Sidekicks ought to be distinct characters. Maybe not the full complexity of a PC, but more than a MM stat-block.

 

[MarkB]

I'd like to see a little more attention & clarification to the roles of familiars, paladin's mounts, and companion animals (ranger, druid, whatever) vs sidekicks. Allowing a familiar (for example) to be a sidekick dilutes the concept of the familiar. Those should all be equally sturdy as a sidekick, but beast companions, mounts, and familiars all exist as a component of a character. Sidekicks are independent entities.

Class feature creatures have clearly defined methods of replacement, whereas a sidekick is gone forever once it dies, barring resurrection magic.

 

[aco175]

I would like to see areas where sidekicks and henchmen can open up adventure ideas. maybe a chart where they have plot points and can add or detract from the group. Some can be hired away or turn on the group. Some can tell the PCs that another group is trying to get information on their base or such. Some clarity on the difference on henchmen and sidekicks and special mounts and familiars would be nice.

Henchmen seem like people you hire and don't need names and come in and out rather easy. Sidekicks can come from henchmen and earn a name. I agree with [MENTION=70]Nellisir[/MENTION] in that sidekicks are more special and earn more attention, but also more avenues to direct adventure to the main PCS.

Ideals and bonds are something that should be given to sidekicks, but should they be player or DM controlled. I tend to give the players more control and jobs to make my life easier. Players knowing that the warrior is noble and such, but scared of rainbows makes sense, but I also can see where they may be greedy and turn on the PCs being something the DM wants to keep secret. If they are player owned, like a PC, then maybe they should have them completely like a PC.

 

[oreofox]

So from what I gather from many replies in here, you wouldn't be happy with a "sidekick" unless it only "leveled" 3 times (tier 1-2, 2-3, 3-4), only got to swing a sword or cast a cantrip, had no other abilities other than swing sword or cast cantrip, and got about 4 hp per tier.

If that's all you want, then that isn't a hard thing to write up. I have no real problems with this UA. Some of it may be a bit on the strong side, I agree.

 

[Pauln6]

Several issues for me include the notion that sidekicks need to be the same level as the PCs, when, unlike 4e, some level disparity works fine in 5e.

I think limit stat boosts to a single +1 per ASI, don't be afraid of dead levels, particularly when proficiency bonus goes up, as sidekicks are really in it for the hit points. Make them half casters with a mystic arcarnum type feature to cast one higher level spell per day. Limit extra attacks to warriors and don't be afraid to stop at two attacks. Maybe allow them a single feat at a certain level to add some variety.

 

[Eric V]

I found this comment from Jeremy very interesting (from twitter):

"It's easy to forget that the Beast Master can get something like a sidekick in addition to a beast companion. The new option is additive; it doesn't replace the beast companion. And a DM might allow the beast companion to take the warrior class."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1074826244519124997

AD

So, it's a stealth fix for the Beastmaster subclass? Ok, that's something, I suppose.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh and I can definitely see PC mount abuse from this. Think about all the CR1 and lower large beasts this opens up as a sidekick to ride on. Heck imagine a level 12 Warhorse "Warrior" sidekick with Plate armor and the Mobile feat.

Every party should have a pride of warrior Lion sidekicks/mounts to ride on lol

If the party can convince a pride of lions to be their friends and then convince them to let them ride them, and then keep them around and alive long enough to gain levels...sure. Why not?

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, I'm a little shocked by how powerful these "sidekicks" can get. There was a Yuan-Ti Pureblood in my game who could have become a party ally (I have different lore for Yuan-Ti and the party isn't exactly NPC friendly but it is a good example) let us say things went differently, I used these rules, and he ended up being a level 10 expert.

Sly Sy
AC: Studded Leather (13)
Spd: 30 ft
HP: 90 (19d8) [Yuan-Ti start with 9d8 hit dice, gains one per level. I don't know if they gain one for level one, but I am assuming they do]

Damage Immunity: Poison
Condition Immunity: Poison
Darkvision 60 ft

Skills: Deception +10, Perception +5, *Stealth +9, *Sleight of Hand +9, Insight +5, *Persuasion +10, *Investigation +9, Medicine +5 (nothing says they lose their previous skills, just that they gain five new ones)
Tools: Poisoner's Kit and Thieve's Tools
Dexterity Saves +5

Cunning Action
Jack of All Trades
Evasion
Magic Resistance

Innate Spells: Animal Friendship at will on snakes, 3/day poison spray and Suggestion

Helpful+Inspiring Help: Bonus action help action that also gives a 1d6 either to the d20 roll or damage [better than guidance or bardic inspiration even though it does come online really late]

Multi-attack or Extra Attack (doesn't matter): Action to attack twice with

Scimitar +5 to hit for 1d6+1

Shortbow +5 to hit for 1d6+1

[Nothing about the Expert says they lose proficiency, and Yuan-Ti have proficiency with Scimitars on their statblock]

Feats instead of ASI's Healer, Inspiring Leader and Skulker. I also considered resilient Wis. If I chose ASIs it would be in raising either Dex or Con.

Now, I went utility instead of damage obviously, but you have a scout with advantage against all magic who is immune to all poisons. They can hide in light obscurement and during combat they can grant you advantage on any attack, a +1d6 to either hit or damage and attack twice on their own. Or cast suggestion or a poison spray which has a DC 15 and would deal 2d12 poison damage (one more level til 3d12). They also give the entire party +12 temp hp and can heal them with a medkit, as well as stabilize and prevent them from dying.


Honestly, I know some level 10 rogues and bards who aren't this much of an asset to the party.

 

[guachi]

I've already used a sidekick in my last campaign. It was a mastiff, specifically a Cane Corso. I found it easiest just to make it a Barbarian (wolf, of course) that got 1/2 xp like an old-school henchman.

It was easier making it an actual PC class as I already had rules for it and the party didn't need to learn new abilities. Since it got 1/2 xp it never got close to the same power level as the PCs. The dog only had a 1d6 bite so its primary weapon couldn't match any PC and its rage ability only made the PCs even more awesome.

I like the idea of sidekicks but I'm not sure a specific sub-system to handle them is what's needed. Just make them advance slower than the party and call it a day.