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.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how these classes are simplified in any way. The degree to which the Warrior looks like the Champion is very high.

I was expecting these to be more in line with 3E-style simplified NPC classes, but these are just giving class levels to a monster.

Pretty much just the lack of subclasses. In general, they seem to have fewer decisions to make when they gain levels than standard PC classes. Their gameplay isn't really any less complex, but generally you don't have to (and in fact, can't) think too much about a build. Even more so than other 5e classes, you just write down what you get at the new level, with little to no room to differentiate one example of the class from another.

I do think that my feedback for this playtest would be that they could stand to be even more streamlined though. I'd get rid of any resource management at all apart from spells for the spellcaster, and I'd replace the Expert's second Expertise feature with something else, so that all of the decision-making happens at 1st level.

 

[Gradine]

Yeah, I feel like I'd dial back the Spellcaster a bit (and maybe even the Warrior's extra attacks), otherwise I think these are a great addition

 

[Hussar]

Hrm..... Very cool.

 

[Pauln6]

Pretty much just the lack of subclasses. In general, they seem to have fewer decisions to make when they gain levels than standard PC classes. Their gameplay isn't really any less complex, but generally you don't have to (and in fact, can't) think too much about a build. Even more so than other 5e classes, you just write down what you get at the new level, with little to no room to differentiate one example of the class from another.I do think that my feedback for this playtest would be that they could stand to be even more streamlined though. I'd get rid of any resource management at all apart from spells for the spellcaster, and I'd replace the Expert's second Expertise feature with something else, so that all of the decision-making happens at 1st level.

I would not say that a sidekick needs a class feature or stat boost every level. Just gaining hit points is cool for a sidekick. They're there either for role play, to fill a missing niche, or simply to add firepower to small groups. They need enough staying power to be relevant but being weaker even at the same level should be a feature, not a bug.

 

[Kobold Stew]

A few thoughts:

1. There has to be a clear statement about using animal companions/familiars as sidekicks. I'm fine if it's allowed, as long as there is an "only one sidekick per PC" rule (and of course DM's permission). Not to allow familiars makes them objectively worse than the sidekick, which shouldn't be.

2. I want to think about the implications of this of a mount. A Mastiff or Horse as a sidekick is a substantial change for a cavalier or Paladin.

3. There should be a statement to the effect of, "The first time you level up with a sidekick, the sidekick advances to your level" (or your level minus x, or whatever). Gaining a level 1 sidekick at level 10 is less effective (mechanically, and in terms of the narrative survivability) than gaining one at level 3. But you should be able to get a pet and be equally effective at upper levels as getting one early in your career.

4. What are the costs of having a sidekick? There should be something. Is it another character with whom to split experience points (assuming points are used; if they aren't there are other issues)? I could see having a sidekick counting as .5 of another character -- but it does mean that PCs without a sidekick could be "dragged down" by a party with pets. It's not immediately clear what an acceptable solution would be.

5. My favorite part of the article is that the Expert or Spellcaster class needs to have a language. All of a sudden, the fact that Blink Dogs and Giant Eagles have a language of their own has meaning! I love this (emergent complexity, as a latent detail gains purpose), and I look forward to my friendly Blink Dog spellcaster barking my PC back to health.

 

[bedir than]

I wish rather than 20 levels we just had four tiers of sidekick

 

[Krachek]

I think the main usage will be for game with 2 or 3 players.
Adding a sidekick can make a better party. More reliable than twisting pc or encounter table.

 

[jmucchiello]

Forget sidekicks, this is a great way to simplify creating enemy monsters with class levels!!!

As for the sidekicks, there should be feats to go with this. The PC takes the feat and they both benefit. Kinda like teamwork feats.

 

[Nellisir]

This definitely looks like playtest material. I've always liked the concept of henchmen, and this goes a long way to make it work. Definitely creates a lot of corner cases (familiars, animal companions, mounts) and could use streamlining. Also, having a warlock or sorcerer sidekick cast spells just like a wizard seems...weird.

A great option to round out small parties though.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Forget sidekicks, this is a great way to simplify creating enemy monsters with class levels!!!

It's not nearly as easy as it could be, though. If the goal was to make it easy to create these characters, then the rules fall short, because they still gain new features that you have to look up at every level. They could have vastly cut back on that, and maybe give them one class feature per tier.