log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

GreyLord

Hero
Because sidekick rules are not grounded into simulationism nor world consistency. Just like you can't by the book have a PC that's exactly the same as one of the NPCs in the MM appendix.

We aren't talking simulationism though, we are just talking about relationships of power. Sidekicks are AWFULLY powerful compared to the normal PC classes in many ways.

In theory, from what I can see, they relieve the notion that you are limited to a maximum of 20 in a statistic for example.

The bonus of a +2 to hit, and the ability to continue to add to their ASI's are also boons that keep them pretty relevant.

I'm starting to see ways to abuse them in a min/max way perhaps, that if played right could outstrip PC's in general.

The rules are VERY vague on them...which is part of the problem and perhaps part of the advantage if one is looking at loop holes.

For example, something to wonder about...can I multiclass my sidekick...what if the sidekick is being used as a PC class?
If so, this opens up an entire separate avenue of abuse of these rules in combination with other classes, especially when looking at synergistic lines of powergaming.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You are overestimating +2 to hit.
It is one more hit every 10 rounds on average... (at level 5 and below)
Action surge allows for another chance to hit which might close the gap easily.
As a battlemaster you have precision attack, which you can use 4 times per short rest. You can add 1d8 to attack rolls when you really need it. Lets say you just use it if you miss by 2 so that your chances to actually turn a miss into a hit is very good. This happens (as explained above) every 10 rounds on average...
So your energy lasts for about 40 rounds if you just want to consistently hit...
I guess most of us don't have 40 rounds of combat between short rests.

That should net you some advantage over the warrior.
A champion of course is worse off, but the champion is not that good anyway at low levels compared to other fighters. They gain some ground when numbers of attacks increase and with it the chance to critical hit.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
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.
Tasha's says only creatures up to CR 1/2 are eligible. Obviously you can do whatever you want for your own table, but at that point you're not using it as intended. If you were to use it with higher CR creatures, at a minimum, I would apply a level adjustment.
 

Tasha's says only creatures up to CR 1/2 are eligible. Obviously you can do whatever you want for your own table, but at that point you're not using it as intended. If you were to use it with higher CR creatures, at a minimum, I would apply a level adjustment.
One needs to build that strawman properly before burning it down.
 
Last edited:

Fanaelialae

Legend
You need to build that strawman properly before burning it down.
In what sense is that a strawman? AFAICT that's just the RAW. Obviously the DM can overrule RAW, but at that point they do need to accept that the consequences of such a change are on them, not the RAW.

TCoE pg 142:
A sidekick can be any type of creature with a stat block in the Monster Manual or another D&D book, but the challenge rating in its stat block must be 1/2 or lower.
 

You need to build that strawman properly before burning it down.
????

Surely GreyLord is the one with the strawman, because he's the one getting the facts wrong? Did you respond on the wrong post?
We aren't talking simulationism though, we are just talking about relationships of power. Sidekicks are AWFULLY powerful compared to the normal PC classes in many ways.
[CITATION NEEDED]

Looking at them they look distinctly weaker than normal PC classes. We've used both at the table as "sidekicks" (i.e. PC classes and "sidekick" classes), and the former were clearly more powerful.
I'm starting to see ways to abuse them in a min/max way perhaps, that if played right could outstrip PC's in general.
Sounds like you're making it up, mate.

Specifics need to be given, and we all know that as soon as they are, this will be shown to be nonsense.
 


????

Surely GreyLord is the one with the strawman, because he's the one getting the facts wrong? Did you respond on the wrong post?

[CITATION NEEDED]

Looking at them they look distinctly weaker than normal PC classes. We've used both at the table as "sidekicks" (i.e. PC classes and "sidekick" classes), and the former were clearly more powerful.

Sounds like you're making it up, mate.

Specifics need to be given, and we all know that as soon as they are, this will be shown to be nonsense.
No. I quted correctly. But I was trying to explain what he seems to do ;)
 

In what sense is that a strawman? AFAICT that's just the RAW. Obviously the DM can overrule RAW, but at that point they do need to accept that the consequences of such a change are on them, not the RAW.

TCoE pg 142:
A sidekick can be any type of creature with a stat block in the Monster Manual or another D&D book, but the challenge rating in its stat block must be 1/2 or lower.
The person i referenced left the last sentence out. So it was NOT RAW. EXCEPT if you think it is still RAW if you quote partial rules... but then we disagree...
edit: probably I should have clearly stated who I thought to use a strawman... I thought it was obvious from context.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
The person i referenced left the last sentence out. So it was NOT RAW. EXCEPT if you think it is still RAW if you quote partial rules... but then we disagree...
edit: probably I should have clearly stated who I thought to use a strawman... I thought it was obvious from context.
Gotcha. You were using "you" impersonally, whereas I read it to mean that you were addressing me directly (and saying that I was the one strawmanning).
 

No. I quted correctly. But I was trying to explain what he seems to do ;)
Oh, okay, this is why I use the also-correct-English "one" rather than "you" in that sort of situation - i.e. "One needs to build a strawman correctly before burning it down.", which makes it clear it's an impersonal statement. Not saying you should, just noting. I feel "one" is a bit underused generally in English.
 

GreyLord

Hero
Tasha's says only creatures up to CR 1/2 are eligible. Obviously you can do whatever you want for your own table, but at that point you're not using it as intended. If you were to use it with higher CR creatures, at a minimum, I would apply a level adjustment.

Yes...yes it does...FOR NPCs....

However, does it say that same thing for PCs?

You COULD read it that way, but then it is contradicting the rules that came before it that allow them to play certain "monster" races that have only been rated at a CR higher than 1/2 (for example, Duergar) if taken in that literal interpretation.

From what I've read, it doesn't say much at all about PC's who take these Sidekick classes as PC classes at all. IN fact, it's only about a few lines, which make the rules EXTREMELY vague regarding them.

This could allow a DM to be extra restrictive (in which case, as a player I'd revolt when they let one player take a race but disallow it to another against the explicit rules...)

Or, a more liberal reading which would allow a LOT of latitude to players.

Of course, regardless of that, still have NOT read a convincing argument in this thread of why Sidekicks get a +2 better to hit than other PC classes.

The only somewhat arguments are that PC's get some things a level earlier (well...the Fighters at least...some of the other martial archetypes are still not justified in comparison by a long mile) which could be an answer...but not really all THAT weakening to the sidekicks unless you STOP your campaign on the earlier level...

OR...Feats.

Now, with Feats, those are optional. They are used to REPLACE as an option, the ASI's each class gets. If the classes get to the option to replace ASI's by choosing a feat, by that same rule, a PC playing a sidekick class should as well...which to me renders that idea that Feats give other PC classes an upperhand a moot point.

I don't see a single rule that says that if a Player takes a sidekick as a class they are then excluded from the other optional rules that every other Player can use.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
BECAUSE THEY ARE SIDEKICKS. They wear you cast off costumes. Will never get their own show. They have to drag you drunk ass home on weekends not adventuring. They always getting captured. They never getting the true kisses from the hot villain. No Retirement plan except for a crowbar. You give them silly name.
THEY DON'T GET RESPECTED !
Let them have than unnamed +2 bonus. Or are you going to steal that idea from them too.
From SALE
Sidekicks Are Loved Everytime.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
Yes...yes it does...FOR NPCs....

However, does it say that same thing for PCs?

You COULD read it that way, but then it is contradicting the rules that came before it that allow them to play certain "monster" races that have only been rated at a CR higher than 1/2 (for example, Duergar) if taken in that literal interpretation.

From what I've read, it doesn't say much at all about PC's who take these Sidekick classes as PC classes at all. IN fact, it's only about a few lines, which make the rules EXTREMELY vague regarding them.

This could allow a DM to be extra restrictive (in which case, as a player I'd revolt when they let one player take a race but disallow it to another against the explicit rules...)

Or, a more liberal reading which would allow a LOT of latitude to players.

Of course, regardless of that, still have NOT read a convincing argument in this thread of why Sidekicks get a +2 better to hit than other PC classes.

The only somewhat arguments are that PC's get some things a level earlier (well...the Fighters at least...some of the other martial archetypes are still not justified in comparison by a long mile) which could be an answer...but not really all THAT weakening to the sidekicks unless you STOP your campaign on the earlier level...

OR...Feats.

Now, with Feats, those are optional. They are used to REPLACE as an option, the ASI's each class gets. If the classes get to the option to replace ASI's by choosing a feat, by that same rule, a PC playing a sidekick class should as well...which to me renders that idea that Feats give other PC classes an upperhand a moot point.

I don't see a single rule that says that if a Player takes a sidekick as a class they are then excluded from the other optional rules that every other Player can use.
It makes absolutely no distinction in the rules between use as PCs or NPCs as far as I can tell.
 


They get +2 to hit because that's the main thing they get, and its simple. It is also more necessary to up their to-hit game because whereas a player is rarely going to play a character without at least a 14 in their main attack stat (unless they are trying to play a handicapped character), there is a fair possibility that a sidekick was recruited as a person or creature with a statblock not particularly conducive to fighting at all. It's going to take a lot of ASIs to make the straight 10s of a human commoner outshine a PC, even with a +2 to hit.
 

ECMO3

Explorer
We aren't talking simulationism though, we are just talking about relationships of power. Sidekicks are AWFULLY powerful compared to the normal PC classes in many ways.
I disagree with this completely. Just about any PC class would mop the floor with an equal-level sidekick.

I think the only exception is the spellcaster at low level with a truely debilitating spell like sleep and only then IF they win initiative.
 


ECMO3

Explorer
Yes...yes it does...FOR NPCs....

However, does it say that same thing for PCs?

You COULD read it that way, but then it is contradicting the rules that came before it that allow them to play certain "monster" races that have only been rated at a CR higher than 1/2 (for example, Duergar) if taken in that literal interpretation.

From what I've read, it doesn't say much at all about PC's who take these Sidekick classes as PC classes at all. IN fact, it's only about a few lines, which make the rules EXTREMELY vague regarding them.
A storm giant is higher than CR1/2. A Storm Giant is CR13

If you are going to intentionally misinterpret the rule, why stop at Storm Giant? Play as a Terrasque sidekick PC. So your level 1 party is an elf wizard, a dwarf fighter, a halfling rogue and a Terrasque warrior defender.

Do you honestly think this interpretation is defendable?
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
@ECMO3 did you quote me by accident?

As I already stated, I agree, Storm Giants and Tarrasques are not valid choices for sidekicks. A sidekick must a creature of CR 1/2 or less.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top