Sidekicks solve SO many of D&D's problems
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 พ.ย. 2023
- #dnd #dungeonsanddragons #onednd
Check out the @PackTactics video about Sidekicks!
• Why Sidekick Rules are...
Check out "The Hidden Halls of Hazakor"
preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/p...
Sidekicks have officially been part of Dungeons and Dragons since Tasha's Cauldron of Everything and are massively underutilized. This video talks about how Sidekicks can be used in One D&D and D&D right now to really evolve the design of the game. - เกม
Oh wow! Thank you very much for the shout out! Good video!
One other thing I like with Sidekicks is using them as the Ranger's animal companion...it's just infinitely better than the beastmaster design, even the Tasha's changes.
I did that in a campaign and it worked out perfectly
this is an amazing point!!! hadn't thought about that!
Would you still give the ranger the beastmaster subclass? or give them a different Ssubclass and just have the animal sidekick as a bonus?
@@mattlazer902 you could go either way. I've always thought the animal companion should be baked into the ranger base class as it gives them more identity than the vague hybrid of druid and fighter.
@redactedlemons6817 nice. I 100% agree. Conceptually, Ranger is one of my favorite classes and heroic archetypes, but I feel 5e has done them so wrong. I recently just completely rewrote my own version of Ranger without spells in the base class, and a totally revised beastmaster for this exact reason.
FYI, D&D Essentials Kit was the first appearance of sidekicks in 2019. Tasha's came out in 2020.
I love sidekicks because it gives me a way to add npcs to the party if they want and earn them while giving me a good way to balance it .
One thing that I just thought of is to give a player that takes one of these beginner classes a chance to "train" into a related full class or different beginner class at a later time with little to no cost. This would give a new player a chance to learn some of the rules without the player feeling like they are stuck with a bad choice.
This is just a rough idea that needs work, but might work out.
Yess, more sidekick content. I'm glad you all are talking about this because weve used these for a while and theyve been very versatile and useful.
I've dabbled with them in my games but after really looking into them I am absolutely going to be incorporating them into my sessions!
This is exactly what I’ve been saying in the comments for a while now. Every survey I fill out I suggest the same thing. It would solve so many issues imo with design and the martial caster divide.
Couldn't agree more :) Glad you've been trying to make it known!
There's nothing wrong with being inspired by other creators. There are only so many books that come out. Only so many different topics to discuss. There's bound to be overlap anyway. It's cool tht you gave credit where credit is due.
Much appreciated :)
We've had a paladin join our party, and he has a warrior sidekick in the form of his summoned warhorse. Yes, "find steed" is now actually useful, because you get a mount that doesn't die the first time a dragon wyrmling sneezes on it!
I've been using the sidekick system for a year and it is good for characters to have fun with. It just the only thing is as a DM it is annoying to relay about 3 different sources to make the stat sheet for them and no real system to use for dnd beyond.
Overall, great vid as always 🎉
It's really funny to me that they keep insisting that giving the Fighter class access to basic maneuvers, even just two or three like you mentioned, would make it too complex for beginner players, but then throw this huge, wonky, golf bag subsystem of weapon mastery into the game and give fighters unique use of it along with an extra resource of second wind and it's multiple uses to keep track of... IDK feels more like an excuse to double down on mastery if you ask me.
Superiority dice are such a clean and simple system to understand that could easily unite the fighter and all of its subclasses. I've never played with, or met any player no matter how new and inexperienced to gaming that didn't start to get bored and frustrated with Champion after only a few sessions. Especially after missing their 3rd attack in a row and wishing they had another die to roll so the one thing they can do on their turn, the one thing they're supposed to be good at, isn't wasted.
I think every fighter could have 3 basic "maneuvers", Precision Attack (to hit), Parry(to defend), and one that just adds damage to a successful hit. Easy for anyone to comprehend, easy to ignore if so desired, and simply makes you feel... "good at fighting"
Yeah, or maybe giving the fighter some specific maneuvers at determined levels, but without the choice of which, and without the superiority dice. So if they like that, they can go Battle Master and get more of them, and also de dice to bolster them. And if they don't like it, or just want to play another subclass, they could still have that versatility to do cool shit without needing feats or DM fiat
I like sidekicks working with monster statblocks I think sidekicks make much better animal companions than what the beatmaster ranger gets. In my current campaign I only hav two players so they both have a sidekick each, the horizonwalker ranger chose a valenar hound which took expert sidekick levels. and it's a far superior companion.
My DM likes the sidekicks and is constantly trying to get us to play them. I don't like them. When I first played the spellcaster and realized it was a half-caster in Tasha's (the official version), I realized that these really don't work as classes for a primary character. They're fine for if you have to play a second character or if the DM needs an NPC who can level up with the party, but that's all they're really good for.
Yeah I think that's largely the point though. They're not really supposed to be a true "main" character. I think these can function as background characters to help out in certain situations or low level campaigns. Alternatively, "beginner" or "sidekick" campaigns should also just level much quicker. That would require a very different setup though.
I can fully agree with this, as Sidekicks definitely lean a little too far into the simplistic design to be a good option for long-term play, and I think there's simply better ways of teaching newer players the game without giving them a bad Player Class. I think it's infinitely better to just teach new players the game with the actual Player Classes (that aren't the pile of jank that is the 5e Artificer) and respect their ability to handle slightly more complex things, especially since 5e is actually fairly simple overall with its Base 12 Classes and lacks any noob-killers like PF2e's Alchemist or True Vancian Casters. Then there's the true issue of 5e that doesn't really help with teaching new players: very early levels suck to play so much that many groups skip them to start at 3rd. First off the Starting HP is way too low with only HD+Con Mod, making it way too easy to get killed by normal foes, and Mt Celestia forbid that you're playing in a game like Lost Mines of Phandelver and face Bugbears that early as they just murderize you, so starting at HD+Con Score would go a long way towards making sure you don't get killed so easily without breaking the balance later on as the impact of +Con Score diminishes over time. The other problem is the lack of Subclasses at 1st Lvl, meaning you can't really play the character you want to play until 3rd Lvl, with Classes like Artificer and Paladin feeling especially bad without them as it feels like a core component of your Class' thematic identity is straight-up missing, so it'd also help to start with them at 1st Lvl (changing Multiclass rules to compensate for the change) so Players can finally make their Subclass choice a part of their Backstory which just fits so well. Now what if you have a ton of new players still? Well, instead of using strictly worse Classes for the whole game, what if we just added the option to play at Lvl 0, where Players can choose any Player Class and get the Core 1st Lvl Features but not the Subclass, start with 1/2 their Starting HP rounded up (to help avoid it getting too low) and have any Ability Scores above 11 be lowered by 2, Full Casters and Pact Mages would only get 1 Spell Slot per Day but have their full Cantrip arsenal available. This would allow new players to learn the game with the actual Classes they'll use for the rest of the game while also not boring the 9 Hells out of any experienced players in the group, even offering a new experience to groups of all experienced players.
I like the idea of squashing the sidekick features into 10 levels, and the base classes' features also squashed into 10 levels. Then, you pick a sidekick class at 1st level and pick a core class at 11th level that fits with the sidekick class i.e. Warrior -> Fighter, Barbarian, or Monk.
Please no, the game is bad enough at very low levels (1st and 2nd) already in 5e, we need to stop making those levels suck even more, treating new players with more respect as they absolutely can handle some more dynamic choices. Sidekicks are not meant to be main characters, and the idea of having "Beginner Classes" for players is unnecessary, as you can easily learn the game with any Class (though Artificer should probably be avoided). The biggest issue isn't that Classes are "too complex" as most actually aren't that complex in the grand scheme of things, the real issue is that because of the way the game is currently designed, it heavily encourages games starting at 3rd lvl as that's when you actually get to become the character you want to be when your Subclass unlocks as they made the awful decision to gate it, while also not being made of paper mache with only +Con Mod to starting HP.
At least making starting HP be X+Con Score do a ton to fix the issues of starting at 1st Lvl without breaking the game's balance much later on, though starting with Subclasses unlocked would fix it entirely (Multiclass would be changed around this). What if you have a party of all new players somehow? Well first off it's better to have only 1 new player in a group of experienced ones, but if you do have a bunch of newbies, then instead of using a system that was never meant for players we reintroduce an idea from 4e's Dragon Magazine: Lvl 0 characters. The Players could choose their Class of choice and gain the core Features of the Class, though dedicated Spellcasters (including Pact Magic users but not 1/2 Casters) only get 1 Spell Slot each day and their Cantrips, while everyone begins with only 1/2 their 1st Lvl HP rounded up as well as -2 to all Ability Scores they put at 12 or higher for 1st Lvl. Once you reach a certain DM-selected milestone you progress to 1st Lvl and get your full starting Stats and HP and your Subclass. These ideas combined could offer a way better solution to numerous problems with very low levels 5e has while offering an actually good optional starting point for a group of new players, one that even experienced players could have some fun with instead of one that would force players to suffer playing garbo Classes that were clearly never meant for Players to use.
Gotta say that they should change its name. First time I saw it, completely skipped it because I just assumed it was a "Robin" kind of thing and I didn't care about that
I love sidekicks, it gives players something to do if their main is paralyzed or under some other condition.
I get what you and PT are saying about sidekicks being the "beginner classes" so that all the standard classes can be freed up to have more complex mechanics - but I can't help but feel that could still be seen as patronizing. Any label they put on sidekicks, whether that's "sidekicks" or even "beginner classes" contrasted with "veteran classes" could be viewed as pejorative.
I think the way to add complexity to classes that isnt part of the base class is via subclasses, feats, and optional subsystems. For example, for players who do want maneuvers on every fighter, I would be in favor of buffing things like Martial Adept and Fighting Initiate.
Yeah, I can see where you are coming from. I guess it's really just a matter of perspective but it really is a tight rope to walk for them.
If you are the kind of person that gets offended about being called a beginner while you are just starting something, there isn't a lot that can be done for you. Having said that, I think "Simple Class" and "Advanced Class" would be better anyway, since sometimes you don't want to deal with the complexity of some of the classes.
I get where youre coming from on the have a newbie list and beef up on fun mechanics, but im almost certain if they do something like this is will be the other way around. Given what we know about wizards, they might release the fighter as a newbie class, but then come out with a whole book down the line call something like "mordencanens tactical manual" that has some super bizare and non traditional subclasses that tells you up front "these arent your grandmas subclasses"
You make great videos, do you think you'll ever make videos about other RPGs?
I appreciate that :)
Maybe in the future. I’ve dabbled in other systems a little bit but I definitely feel most comfortable in the D&D space but who knows!
What you’re talking about in this video is “Essentials” and I loathe them. They were the death knell of 4e and were used as an excuse to republish core material with a lower word count and less thought. Existing material was repackaged and gutted of versatility.
I’m not saying a diet version of the game has no place, but from playing pretend to writing fan fic, there are better lead ins to RP than subsystems that divert resources from new and expanded options that are worth it for new and old players.
The need for a beginner class is temporary. Even new players like to be cool. Permanently nerfing a class for a temporary situation is a dumb design decision.
I think you’re misinterpreting the point. There’s no nerfing happening of any kind. A beginner class would be completely separate from the “main” classes. And yeah, of course the need is temporary, that’s precisely the point. No one is supposed to keep playing one of these for years and years. The idea is to have it to help people jump into the game to help them decide if it’s something worth investing more time in for them.
I did not mean nerfing as in adding a nerf in a revision, they were already nerfed. The fighter is the most obvious that people have said is meant to be simple. The problem is that it stays simple and weak while the rest of the group gets cool. Only the Battle Master is very good at higher levels. They could add cool weapon maneuvers, like sweeping for AOE and other fun abilities. But they don't. Why? Because it is meant to be a Beginner class. It is penalized for that.
The issue with Fighters is that people say "oh, they can fight". But so can everybody. In earlier editions they had a higher bonus to attack rolls, but now everybody has the same bonus. The only thing a fighter can do to hit more often at 1st level is be an archer. I like what they have done with fighters, and I am playing a Samurai with Elven Accuracy, which is pretty good, and next feat I will get Sniper. So, those will help me to be cool, but the rest of the party will outshine me most of the time. I feel like just a support character, where I feel that every character with a class should have equal value. A sidekick can be weaker and therefore fine for beginners, but for the rest of the gaming they weaken some of the classes. Rogue is pretty weak at higher levels, too.
@SeeleyOne this is really confusing me because it’s exactly what I said in the video lol. They view the class as beginner which is why they don’t do many “cool” things with it and only the Battle Master has real potential.
The whole point of what I am saying is that adding a separate set of beginner classes could allow them the potential to do many more cool and interesting things with not just the Fighter but other classes too since they wouldn’t need to worry about its “beginner” perception.
Yes, I agree with the video
9:30 Really? But the Barbarian is a much better introductory class than the fighter.
just sounds like cope. They will never make Sidekicks into beginner classes. There is a reason that UA is always better designed and balanced than what we actually get. WotC produces design by the lowest bidder.
And like so many obvious solutions, wotc will ignore it completely. Because then they would have to try and improve martials. And we cant have that.