D&D 5E Why do your sidekicks hit better than the PC's??

[Weiley31]

I prefer a Tarrasque Bladesinger myself.

 

[WKE]

It's more than that. The Side kick system allows you to play ANY creature as a sidekick...and since you can play one as a PC as well....

Which is why I bring up the Storm Giant as the PC sidekick. If I read it right, I get the stats that the Book gives for the creature, meaning I start with a 29 STR...if I read it right.

A +9 Dmg to Hit and Damage from the start is a pretty big boost...and it only goes up from there. I'd probably take that guaranteed +9 every turn over a ONCE use bonus action from an action surge between rests.

In the creating a sidekick section of Tashas, it does specify a sidekick creature must be of cr 1/2 or lower.

 

[Umbran]

The sidekick system is lazily designed and needs a heavy revision, that's why.

If you have to attach the insult to the people (laziness) to make your argument work, it isn't a strong argument.

Because sidekick rules are not grounded into simulationism nor world consistency.

Exactly. NPCs and monsters don't work by the same rules as PCs. There's no reason to expect equivalency.

 

[aco175]

Exactly. NPCs and monsters don't work by the same rules as PCs. There's no reason to expect equivalency.

If the book allows me to play a sidekick as my PC, should I now expect equivalency? Other books allow may allow me to play a monster as my PC, but constrains or modifies the amount of the monster and PC-ifies it first. Tashas seems to say I can just play the sidekick as is and be fine.

I do think that it is more or less fine to play as is and can be more on par with PCs in groups that may not play with feats or groups that may be less optimized than others. Certain combos would far outshine them though.

 

[Umbran]

If the book allows me to play a sidekick as my PC, should I now expect equivalency?

Only in the broad sense of power balance between any other two PC classes.

The ability to hit about 10% more often is hardly the end of the power-balance question.

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

If you have a PC fighter who's doing their job just fine, why do you also want to put in a sidekick who does the exact same thing?

Build them differently. If the PC fighter is a DEX fighter, add a STR Warrior, maybe sword&board, or great weapon. If the PC Warrior is a STR fighter, add a DEX Warrior, maybe an archer. Then they are not doing the same thing. Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, and Monk can all be flavors of Warrior.
Also, what if the Warrior is a wolf or a black bear, not a humanoid? Suddenly they feel very different, even if mechanically they're much the same.

 

[Blue]

IMO, non-casters should have had higher proficiency bonuses over half-casters, who in turn have a higher bonus over casters. Magic takes time to learn, meaning you aren't as good at hitting things or skills.

So a cleric should learn about religion slower than a fighter? A rogue should advance their Int save faster than a Wizard does as they go up levels?

Heck, even when talking combat, that would give lower spell attack rolls vs. weapon attack rolls at the same AC. So casters would be worse at their magic. And DCs and saves are affected as well, getting out of sync.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So a cleric should learn about religion slower than a fighter? A rogue should advance their Int save faster than a Wizard does as they go up levels?

Heck, even when talking combat, that would give lower spell attack rolls vs. weapon attack rolls at the same AC. So casters would be worse at their magic. And DCs and saves are affected as well, getting out of sync.

Yes. That cleric has to spend time learning spells, and therefore has less time for everything else. Casters need about a 25-50% reduction in... almost everything. That won't happen, because D&D has really leaned into "caster uber alles", but that's my opinion.

Savage Worlds you spend a feat just to be able to cast. You get 1-3 spells, and a few power points. You spend a new feat for each new spell. In Shadowrun, if you can cast you have lower stats, wealth, skills, species options etc. You're literally worse at everything as a means of paying the caster tax. D&D casters are spoiled in comparison.

I've been looking into it, and like PF2E's levels of proficiency (+2 trained, +4 expert, +6 master, +8 legendary). The fighter starts off as Expert in Weapons, the cleric at Trained. So out of the gates, the fighter has a +2 to hit on the cleric. But the universal proficiency bonus results in a same Dex Wizard and a Rogue being about as accurate with a bow, despite the wizard also needing time to learn magic.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So a cleric should learn about religion slower than a fighter? A rogue should advance their Int save faster than a Wizard does as they go up levels?

Heck, even when talking combat, that would give lower spell attack rolls vs. weapon attack rolls at the same AC. So casters would be worse at their magic. And DCs and saves are affected as well, getting out of sync.

and all for the super low cost of 9th level spells... or even just 5th level ones. so yes, yes they should