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?
D&D 5E Why do your sidekicks hit better than the PC'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?
Okay, fine, then do it. No one's stopping you. But there's no reason why the game itself has to say it's okay before you do.
Tales and Chronicles
Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
There's some features of the Sidekicks that are better than some stuff the classes get.
The Helpful + Coordinated Attack + Inspiring Help is just way better than Bardic Inspiration, IMO.
Battle Readiness of the Warrior is super basic yet very appropriate and powerful. Could have been the 6th level fighter feature.
Martial Role could have been a 1st level Fighter feature in Addition to FS.
14th level fighter could gain another FS instead of a floating ASI. There could have been ''Improved FS'' .
Anyway, the advent of the sidekicks gave me some cool features to add to the classes I felt lacking in the PHB, at least.
The Helpful + Coordinated Attack + Inspiring Help is just way better than Bardic Inspiration, IMO.
Battle Readiness of the Warrior is super basic yet very appropriate and powerful. Could have been the 6th level fighter feature.
Martial Role could have been a 1st level Fighter feature in Addition to FS.
14th level fighter could gain another FS instead of a floating ASI. There could have been ''Improved FS'' .
Anyway, the advent of the sidekicks gave me some cool features to add to the classes I felt lacking in the PHB, at least.
It's too keep it simple. Honestly if I were making warriors NPCs, I probably would not have included any abilities you need to track like second wind and indomitable.
If you think it is a really big deal though, I'd say test it out in actual play. Next time you get to make a PC, ask to play a Warrior NPC and see if it feels overpowered next to the rest of the party.
This feels like a very much like a straw-man argument to me, rather than one that is based in actual play. I'm a pretty generious DM when it comes to treasure, and at 16th level, only two of the four characters who use weapons have +3 weapons. Having so many +3 weapons that you're giving extras to the side kick seems super Monty Haul to me.
If you think it is a really big deal though, I'd say test it out in actual play. Next time you get to make a PC, ask to play a Warrior NPC and see if it feels overpowered next to the rest of the party.
Helpful NPC Thom
Adventurer
The sidekick system is lazily designed and needs a heavy revision, that's why. I do not allow them in my game for that reason.
Fanaelialae
Legend
There's no reason you can't play a warrior if you prefer the +2. Tasha's even says that a player might play a sidekick as their only character if they're looking for something simpler than a typical PC. They're meant to be roughly on par with PCs, but with less moving parts.
That said, Fighters get a lot of great features that Warriors don't (action surge, etc) so I, personally, would much rather play a Fighter.
That said, Fighters get a lot of great features that Warriors don't (action surge, etc) so I, personally, would much rather play a Fighter.
Neonchameleon
Legend
OK. Let's check this. The Warrior is a cut down Champion Fighter who at low level gets Martial Role in place of a fighting style and Action Surge. They don't get extra ASIs and their third attack is delayed from level 11 to level 15
At fifth level they are fairly comprehensively behind; they get their extra attack a level late. At sixth level they close the gap - but are either an ASI behind (which adds to hit and to damage) or a feat behind, which can be a gamechanger. So we can say fairly comprehensively that from fifth level onwards the warrior has fallen behind the champion fighter.
The question is therefore at 1st to 4th level. At third level and fourth level the champion and the warrior gain the same things (improved crit, ASI), and the fighter's level 1 second wind is gained by the warrior at level 2 so we only really have two cases:
L1: Fighting Style + Second Wind vs Martial Role
L2-4: Fighting Style + Action Surge vs Martial Role.
We can also say that the warrior's Defender martial role is worse than the Protector fighting style even if Protector requires a shield; it's easier to be next to your ally than your enemy when dealing with archers.
So this does leave Attacker. +2 to hit vs the archery, great weapon, or duellist fighting style and either Second Wind or Action Surge.
At first level the fighter's advantage is huge. Second Wind is 1d10+1hp and is likely to increase the fighter's hit points by 50%; it's implied that the warrior gets rolled hp (and doesn't get the half rounding up each level). At first level second wind is huge and probably bigger on its own than +2 to hit.
But let's put Second Wind Action Surge to one side for a minute and look at the fighting styles. Attacker is easy to calculate; through the magic of bounded accuracy +2 to hit when you hit on an 11 is an increase of roughly 20% of your DPR.
Archery: Archery fighting style with its +2 to hit at range is strictly worse than +2 to hit - but it's not very much worse if you want to be an archer. Action Surge with its explosive damage should be far better overall than +2 in melee for a specialist archer. And the ranger's just going to laugh at you.
Duellist: Taking the textbook duellist with a longsword and shield, the warrior should be doing 1d8+3 damage in melee or an average of 7.5. The duelist is going to be doing 1d8+5 or 9.5 on average. Even if we allow at 4th level a first ASI and a +1 sword it's 9.5 vs 11.5; the duellist fighter still hits more than 20% harder than the warrior so they do more damage per round.
Great Weapon: This one is closer. The warrior with a greatsword does an average of 10 damage on a hit before 4th level (2d6+3). The average damage from a greatsword hit is 3 + 25/3 = 11.333. Now I'm absolutely confident here that the action surge closes the gap in terms of dpr against being 20% more likely to hit. For a polearm (8.5 vs 9.3), a strongly suboptimal weapon without Polearm Master, action surge closes the gap (and is thus stronger thanks to being burstier and more front loaded) if you manage to have a rest for every ten rounds of combat. And you don't really have the hp to take ten rounds of combat without a rest.
So from level 2 to level 4 the warrior is a second rate champion fighter but not far off. From level 5 onwards the champion pulls away and never looks back assuming feats are in play.
And anyone who thinks that a level 5 wizard is remotely as good with a sword as a warrior with is kidding themselves. Extra attack is huge.
The goal of sidekicks is simplicity so you leave anything you need to remember off the menu. So you have a significantly weaker class overall. The only worry here is multiclassing cheese.
Li Shenron
Legend
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.
GreyLord
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.
