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.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

It makes Beast Masters even more sub-optimal.

Why tho? I think the Beastmaster is the prime candidate for a beast sidekicks at level 3. I see a lot of people, mainly on Reddit, that act as is sidekicks were just another features they could choose to add to their character. In my book, leveled sidekicks should be treated as rare equipment or magic loot as they make a character more powerful than the game assumes.

IMO, if those rules actually make it into prints, the sidekicks will only level-up every other character level (making them lvl 10 class, if you want). So a Beastmaster (or a chain warlock, why not?) would gain a lvl 1 sidekicks at level 3 and their class features would give give those sidekicks even more benefits: magic attack, invocations etc. Maybe another character could recruit a sidekick at higher level, but the BM's one will always be better. Sure, if the DM gives at-level sidekicks to everyone at any levels, it may unbalance the game, but that is true of many things.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

These aren't sidekicks, just streamlined PCs. They basically are just as useful. Maybe not the expert, but someone who can cast Wish isn't a sidekick.

That is indeed very strong. To me the ''spellcaster'' sidekick should only have cantrips and be more focused on rituals.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Dude - I'd like to see WotC use these classes as a basis for a "Tales of the D&D Multiverse: A Storytelling Game" -- aka "Simply D&D" (SD&D) -- streamlined pick-up RPG.

https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/simple-rpg

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Why tho? I think the Beastmaster is the prime candidate for a beast sidekicks at level 3. I see a lot of people, mainly on Reddit, that act as is sidekicks were just another features they could choose to add to their character. In my book, leveled sidekicks should be treated as rare equipment or magic loot as they make a character more powerful than the game assumes.

IMO, if those rules actually make it into prints, the sidekicks will only level-up every other character level (making them lvl 10 class, if you want). So a Beastmaster (or a chain warlock, why not?) would gain a lvl 1 sidekicks at level 3 and their class features would give give those sidekicks even more benefits: magic attack, invocations etc. Maybe another character could recruit a sidekick at higher level, but the BM's one will always be better. Sure, if the DM gives at-level sidekicks to everyone at any levels, it may unbalance the game, but that is true of many things.

I agree. The Beastmaster should have a sidekick. But if you give the Wizard a Sidekick familiar and don't give the Beastmaster anything, it makes their 'niche' even worse. That's all I'm talking about.

Would the Class abilities stack with the Sidekick abilities or replace them?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I agree. The Beastmaster should have a sidekick. But if you give the Wizard a Sidekick familiar and don't give the Beastmaster anything, it makes their 'niche' even worse. That's all I'm talking about.

Would the Class abilities stack with the Sidekick abilities or replace them?

I would have to see (or even better, play it) how this would work out because IIRC, Beastmaster's pet have a different way of calculating HP and AC. For the rest I'd let them stack, with the idea that at level 3, the pet-sidekick is level 1 and that it level each other level, not every ranger level. So a lvl 20 Beastmaster would have a lvl 8 sidekick wolf with magical attack and shared attacks and spells that it could further enhance with spells such as Awaken.

As for the warlock, when a warlock takes the chain pact, it gain a superior lvl 1 familiar-sidekick (must choose if its a pseudodragon warrior, an Imp Expert or a Sprite spellcaster, for exemple). The warlock can then select invocation such as Voice of the Chain Master to improve its sidekick. Sure, other players might get other sidekicks, but none will be better than the warlock's, unless the DM give a higher level sidekick to another player before that or at the same time. To me it would be like a DM handing the paladin a Flametongue weapon at the same level that the warlock decide to go with a pact of the blade; its a little unfair.

EDIT: I could totally see an fighter or paladin archetype with a sidekick-mount and features that mesh well with that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would prefer to make the prof equal to the prof of the player...and the expert works better then the other 2.

I would rather the spellcaster get no more then 1/2 maybe 2/3 caster levels...no 9th level spells

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Forget the sidekick fluff, this is awesome for companion characters, and for piloting a missing player's character in a simple manner (with their permission), and well as stuff like NPC allies in big fights (the town guard is helping your fend off raiders, etc), and leveling up monsters in a reliable way.

 

[jmucchiello]

If turning a skeleton into a skeleton warrior was literally just a matter of adding HP per level and an extra attack at each tier, then we would have 90% of the functionality from adding all of the features on the chart, except I wouldn't need to look anything up because I've already memorized it.

And all of your skeleton warriors are boring as hell. You take a few minutes more to do it and fighting against skeleton warriors is a challenge because they can do stuff.

 

[jmucchiello]

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

Yes, they should.

 

[Jester David]

I wonder if this is planned for a pirate adventure where important crew might be sidekicks.
Or if it’s just one of those experimental subsystems like the Mass Combat rules they’re just testing out.