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

[GreyLord]

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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]

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

A Warrior Sidekick may have only 70% of the power of a PC Fighter, but a Spellcaster sidekick seems to have less than 30% of the power of a PC caster.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

????

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

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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]

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).