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

[GreyLord]

So, thinking about the sidekick rules in Tasha's....

You can choose a Warrior as a Sidekick and it can get a +2 to hit. This is not limited to simply when you do a ranged attack (as the fighting style) or limited to a certain amount of times with a random roll (archetype ability), but that they ALWAYS have a +2 to their attack if you choose that option.

It makes no sense to me that the sidekicks get this as an option, or fighting style type idea, whereas PC's do not. In melee, this means except for 3-4 attacks with a certain ability, the Sidekick will ALWAYS hit other things easier than a PC in general given all things equal.

Why isn't something similar allowed for PC's? It seems they are aware that warriors could use a boost to hit better as something to differentiate between the Warrior and others ideas such as a spellcaster or Expert type class (Wizard, sorcerer, Rogue, etc).

So, why such the reticent at allowing Warriors a better hitting ability than other classes in general?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Warriors will have higher STRs and better magic weapons than non-warriors, so their total attack bonuses to hit with weapons in melee will almost always be better than other characters as they advance in level.

When you are playing your character, you never care how you got your total attack bonus, all that matters is the number. So there's no reason to worry about making sure the individual pieces that comprise the attack bonus "make sense" compared to all the different classes. That's getting way too far into the weeds of number crunching for no appreciable benefit.

If I'm a Fighter with an attack bonus of +7 with my longsword, and the wizard attacks with a +3 with her quarterstaff... it doesn't matter at all which bits make up the +7 and the +3. All that really matters is that the Fighter is better using their weapon than the wizard is.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

They had slower attack bonus progressions in much of the playtest, until the decision was made to unify attack bonus and skill bonuses into a single proficiency bonus.

 

[commandercrud]

Because a +2 is super simple. Sidekicks are super simple.

 

[Quickleaf]

I suspect it's for three reasons: (1) player classes have much more force multiplier options for their attacks than the sidekick NPC classes, so a +2 to attack will lead to much greater result for a player compared to a sidekick NPC. (2) to provide a consistent sense of the sidekick's contribution for players, to minimize a "this guy's useless" evaluation players might be hasty to make. (3) to keep it simple.

 

[OptionalRule]

So, thinking about the sidekick rules in Tasha's....

You can choose a Warrior as a Sidekick and it can get a +2 to hit. This is not limited to simply when you do a ranged attack (as the fighting style) or limited to a certain amount of times with a random roll (archetype ability), but that they ALWAYS have a +2 to their attack if you choose that option.

It makes no sense to me that the sidekicks get this as an option, or fighting style type idea, whereas PC's do not. In melee, this means except for 3-4 attacks with a certain ability, the Sidekick will ALWAYS hit other things easier than a PC in general given all things equal.

Why isn't something similar allowed for PC's? It seems they are aware that warriors could use a boost to hit better as something to differentiate between the Warrior and others ideas such as a spellcaster or Expert type class (Wizard, sorcerer, Rogue, etc).

So, why such the reticent at allowing Warriors a better hitting ability than other classes in general?

I'm not sure of the utility of looking or comparing on a single ability. Just as monster statblocks have abilities the PCs don't have, it's not about being better, it's about being easier to run quickly. As a whole, sidekicks are much weaker than PCs, having something in one area doesn't change that.

 

[Krachek]

But why the hell the sidekick have extra attack at level 6 and 15, and he have no action surge, he is so damn underpowered!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Also, barring what I believe is a purely theoretical idea from WotC that people are playing sidekicks as player characters, you're likely to only have a warrior sidekick NPC in your party if your party is hurting for melee damage. If there's a successful fighter PC in the group, any sidekicks will be filling in different gaps instead.

I'm running five campaigns, off and on, and most of them have sidekicks, and they're all pretty much there to fill in gaps (and drag PC bodies out of battle to stabilize them).

 

[GreyLord]

Warriors will have higher STRs and better magic weapons than non-warriors, so their total attack bonuses to hit with weapons in melee will almost always be better than other characters as they advance in level.

When you are playing your character, you never care how you got your total attack bonus, all that matters is the number. So there's no reason to worry about making sure the individual pieces that comprise the attack bonus "make sense" compared to all the different classes. That's getting way too far into the weeds of number crunching for no appreciable benefit.

If I'm a Fighter with an attack bonus of +7 with my longsword, and the wizard attacks with a +3 with her quarterstaff... it doesn't matter at all which bits make up the +7 and the +3. All that really matters is that the Fighter is better using their weapon than the wizard is.

With 20 being the highest one can get...not necessarily.

And why would you not GIVE your sidekick the other +3 weapon that you found?

Now, you get a +4 to hit at level 9, with another +5 from your STR, and a +3 weapon for a +12. Your sidekick also has a +4 prof bonus to hit at level 9, with another +5 for their STR (remember, they also get to add to their stats), and a +3 weapon AND a +2 to hit, so they now have +14 to hit.

They also will have 2 attacks as you have two attacks.

There are several PC classes that have worthless bonuses in comparison in the PHB...and a Battlemaster...they are so limited by default that your skills will last one combat...maybe two if you are VERY lucky...while the NPC warrior doesn't have their bonus ever die out.

NPC Warrior will outdo many of the PC warrior classes in many cases...

I don't see why Martials don't get the extra bonuses to hit...

Anyone who thinks a Wizard (or any other class) can't get a 20 STR or DEX is kidding themselves...because 20 is the max, you HAVE to eventually put your stat increases SOMEWHERE if one is not using feats...and not everyone uses feats.

If something is good enough to give to the Sidekicks, it should be good enough to give to PC's (though in theory, one COULD use the sidekick idea as a PC according to Tasha's...which could bring up other interesting questions that are open ended with the rules in there...for example...if I am a Storm Giant PC using a sidekick warrior class...is my STR still limited to 20? and if it is not...when I add stat bonuses...can I get it higher than 30?...sorry...just thinking of the cheese one can do with the Sidekick rules of Tasha's).