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.

 

[maceochaid]

Thing is, only one out of those three is a combat role that need a complete stat block.

The Expert can be any simple NPC or monster straight out of the Monster Manual, that also succeeds at those skill checks the party can't do, but still need.

The Spellcaster; likewise. If you need access to a particular spell, that spell is almost guaranteed to be a non-combat spell. So use the Mage or Priest NPC stat block, or an Orc War Priest or whatever, and simply say that character has the spell on its spell list.

Which I've used, but that method has drawbacks,

• can't level with the party
• not at quite the right level
• doesn't have quite the right abilities
• isn't beefy enough to act in combat as a little extra bump

So I think this article actually helps a lot, but needs to refine itself based on go simpler, and needs to keep in mind "what can help, without upstaging." So stripping back the intense diversity and damage dealing of the Expert, and the Spellcasting options of the Spellcaster.

 

[CapnZapp]

Which I've used, but that method has drawbacks,

• can't level with the party
• not at quite the right level
• doesn't have quite the right abilities
• isn't beefy enough to act in combat as a little extra bump

Did you see my suggestion (reposted in a thread of its own: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?655762-Unearthed-Arcana-Sidekicks-the-simpler-approach)?

I find it answers all four of your points, with 90% less clutter than the UA article

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Which I've used, but that method has drawbacks,

• can't level with the party
• not at quite the right level
• doesn't have quite the right abilities
• isn't beefy enough to act in combat as a little extra bump

So I think this article actually helps a lot, but needs to refine itself based on go simpler, and needs to keep in mind "what can help, without upstaging." So stripping back the intense diversity and damage dealing of the Expert, and the Spellcasting options of the Spellcaster.

What I do: when a ''statblock NPC'' joins a party for some time, when the party levels up, I give them one more HD, ASI at each 4 HD, increase Prof bonus at same time as the party etc. Its not too bad as a result, you just modify some numbers on the statblock. I dont personally feel the need to give them extra features.

 

[aco175]

What I do: when a ''statblock NPC'' joins a party for some time, when the party levels up, I give them one more HD, ASI at each 4 HD, increase Prof bonus at same time as the party etc. Its not too bad as a result, you just modify some numbers on the statblock. I dont personally feel the need to give them extra features.

I have some recurring NPCs that have leveled up now and again along with the PCs. I give them some powers from 4e after a few levels. I gave a fighter-type a close burst 1 attack against all enemies. This takes away from needing to give much else except a few more HP and +1 attack. I think the PCs went from 2nd to 8th level and the NPC went from 2HD soldier to 5HD.

The example is for a NPC and not a player controlled sidekick, but could work.

 

[JPL]

I've decided that five skills for the Expert might end up being too many damn skills. Maybe, they get a total of five skills, including any that the baseline creature receives?

 

[Nawara]

Something that really surprised me is how pointless the "choice" of saving throws is. In 5e, there are three strong saves that cover up the vast, vast majority of monster abilities and spells (Dex/Con/Wis) and three weak saves that are only very rarely tested (St/Int/Cha). The developers are clearly aware of this, which is why every single class in the PHB has one strong save and one weak save.

But in these playtest rules, each sidekick class ostensibly gets to choose one of three saves but nobody who understands the rules would ever pick Str, Int, or Cha. The Warrior gets to choose between two good saves (Con or Dex), while the Expert (Dex) and the Spellcaster (Wis) only have one strong save available to them.

Given how thematically broad these classes are, I don't see any good reason to restrict the choice at all... if an Expert wants to have a strong Wis and a weak Dex, why not let them? It won't break anything.

 

[Remathilis]

Something that really surprised me is how pointless the "choice" of saving throws is. In 5e, there are three strong saves that cover up the vast, vast majority of monster abilities and spells (Dex/Con/Wis) and three weak saves that are only very rarely tested (St/Int/Cha). The developers are clearly aware of this, which is why every single class in the PHB has one strong save and one weak save.

But in these playtest rules, each sidekick class ostensibly gets to choose one of three saves but nobody who understands the rules would ever pick Str, Int, or Cha. The Warrior gets to choose between two good saves (Con or Dex), while the Expert (Dex) and the Spellcaster (Wis) only have one strong save available to them.

Given how thematically broad these classes are, I don't see any good reason to restrict the choice at all... if an Expert wants to have a strong Wis and a weak Dex, why not let them? It won't break anything.

Some creatures and NPCs are already proficient in a given save; this allows them a choice to pick another to add to.

 

[Pauln6]

I thought the sidekick class replaces the monster's normal hit dice, saves and skills? I think I'd only leave racial features intact.

 

[mrpopstar]

Can we just talk about how they gave a shout out to adventuring librarians?



My D&D life is complete.

 

[flametitan]

Honestly, I'd pass on this. This basically solves none of the problems with running sidekicks as PCs. The retainer rules from Strongholds & Followers are much more elegant, even if they need a bit more fine-tuning still.