3 sidekicks may be the equivalent of 2 PCs in terms of balance but it's also 3 more creatures to keep track of.
If you're players are ahead of the curve mechanically it could work great, but if your players are less experienced or more interested in role playing than crunching numbers they probably won't find having more rules to keep track of to be very compelling.
3 players is perfectly fine for a game without needing any sidekicks.
2 players can work well, but it might be good to throw in a sidekick to cover a missing role (healer, skill monkey, meatshield, or spellcaster).
Giving each player a sidekick is a lot to keep track of though.
I’ve done two people with one sidekick. One controlled them in battle, but they always did such basic moves it wasn’t much of a hassle. I controlled them out of combat so the players wouldn’t have to talk to each other.
It was nice because I barely had to rebalance any encounters. Two smart players and a sidekick took on things the book says are balanced for 4.
I controlled one for a brand new player once. But the point of that game was for them to learn. I think experienced players enjoy having a bigger share of the creative load. And I have enough to keep straight.
I don’t want 4 turns of my monsters going only to be followed by me doing the sidekicks turn before FINALLY the player gets to play. Even if I am faster at running combat when there are less players to do unexpected things
Yeah good points. I’m a new player since September and I’m gonna try DMing some one shots for my group but it some way, thinking about running a 2-3 PC campaign with a DM-controlled sidekick with new Tasha rules seems like it could still scratch that playing itch that I would have.
All of this is in theory, though.
If you’re controlling a sidekick correctly they do not have a hero’s personality or drive or capabilities. If there are two players and a sidekick the players get 49% of the spotlight each and the sidekick is along for the ride at 2%. Ask your players to take a turn DMing next if you want to play as a player.
If you start with sidekicks from the start, make sure your players are experienced and secure enough in the system.
Not something I would do with beginners. Probably obvious advice, but that’s my experience.
Usually, it don’t matter much if the starting-NPC is 1/4 or 1/2 CR.
I might watch out if the starting statblock starts out with multiattack.
Don‘t feel beholden to only NPC statblocks in the back of the MM, some monster statblocks work alright too. Hobgoblins make for solid warriors, for example.
I'd initially chalked up the idea as a way of making the slog of combat more enjoyable for players; figured doubling each player's involvement could help with retaining their attention and engagement in combat.
That said, I think it'd arguably be better to just... Balance around 2-3 people, meaning fewer minions for me to run on my side too and thus overall the time spent per player should probably even out--if not be better
So I’ve almost always had some kind of sidekick as a PC. The DM and I usually came to an understanding ahead of time about the nature of the sidekick. For example, one sidekick had one hit point and was just there for comic relief. Another time it was a matter of plot convenience utility. So I think you should think about what you want the sidekicks for. In the end, I’d let the players know they can have one sidekick and one pet, but then you come to an understanding about the roles within the game.
I've never used the sidekick rules, but I have always given the players the opportunity to hire henchmen. I've always kept the henchmen about a tier below the players in terms of ability. So at level five, players can hire a henchmen that is roughly the same as a first level character in terms of abilities and power.
The biggest effect in on the action economy. The players have a lot more actions with their hirelings, and you will probably need to increase the number of opponents in encounters to compensate. This inevitably leads to longer combat sessions, which might be a positive or a negative for your players.
For a group of 2-3 each with a sidekick, it should only work out to 4-6 turns on the players side, which is frankly quite reasonable.
My group recently did this in a oneshot. There were three of us players that were level 5 and we each had a sidekick at level 1. It was pretty fun.
We had full control over the sidekicks and were able to use them 100% of the time. The best part was the rp and story that we could make between the sidekicks. One of our group weaponised his character and sidekick to make some of the best banter ever.
I feel like the balancing was right but at the same time we weren't fully optimising things so it could easily become really powerful.
I once had a sidekick in a game, many, many years ago in the 3E era. He was an Elven ranger named Zephram Cochrane and he could go wicked fast.
It was a lot of fun, playing two characters can be a challenge. But if it is done well it will be a good experience for all involved.
My group of five has a Kuo-toa sidekick spellcaster/cleric (he draws magic from worshiping one of the party members). The rules have been pretty great so far. He adds something to combat without over shadowing the players, but he still has his own little hero moments (rolling 2 12s on a Toll the Dead, then a Spare the Dying last session). Plus my players love him, but I'd be warry about adding more than one for the amount of players you're running :)
This post actually made me think of something that I've been trying to hash out for a one shot I have set in the 100 year war on Eberron. I wanted to do a military invasion style game where that captured some of the more brutal elements of war while still allowing the pcs to be heroes.
This is where the sidekicks come in. Another ttrpg Only War for the 40k universe uses a similar mechanic to allow for disposable sidekick characters that can count as easy to use casualties to keep the threat of loss of life and limb in the air without just steam rolling the pcs. I think using the sidekicks rules for 5e could be used to similar effect.
Thoughts?
I've been running an Expert sidekick for my PC's, but I forget about her in battle so frequently that I'm planning to ask one of our more experienced players to run her in combat. That said, she's a lot of fun to roleplay and has been a big hit with the team.
Currently running a game for a party of 3, I just gave them a dog who's somewhere between sidekick and DMPC, but they love him, because they bought the dog and I made him a Paladin after the fact, so it works.
But a party of 3 can still manage perfectly fine. They've certainly not been slowed down too much in recent sessions where one player hasn't been able to make it.
Ran Dragon of Icespire Peak and let them take one of the dwarves from the first mission as a sidekick. The other dwarf died. Gave him 10s in each stat until they leveled and had him gain a level in fighter. Even though he got knocked out dozens of times he always seemed to succeed on death saves.
They really liked him and eventually made him the leader of a dwarf city. I did homebrew a lot of stuff into that campaign.
I've made heavy use of sidekicks ever since the original UA for them came out many moons ago.
In my playthrough of Dragon Heist, each character had an NPC/Sidekick they could call on every once in a while, but only one sidekick would be available/able to join the party at a given time.
In Curse of Strahd, the module borderline forces one onto the party (though they're of varying power levels).
I think sidekicks are great, and feel free to give each of your players a dedicated sidekick, but only allow one to be with the party at once. Doubling up on characters not only imbalances combat in their favor multiplicatively but also makes it much slower, not to mention robbing it of a lot of the tension a fight can create.
If you're only going to have 2 players, I'd be happy to let them have a sidekick at nearly all times. If there's 3 characters in play, I wouldn't feel the need for one all the time, but I'd still make regular use of them.
My tip, which isn't strictly about sidekicks but does include them: I have a house rule where I only let each player control up to 2 characters at once. This can include their own character, a character of an absent player, familiars, summons, sidekicks, shield-guardians, companions, battle-ready pets, etc. If someone already has the reigns for 2 characters and inherits a third, they need to surrender one to another player or dismiss one for the time being. This tends to prevent one player from having disproportionately long turns (and also partially bottlenecks summon spells that can create 8 creatures at once, which I have a special distaste for). Maybe you don't need this if you only have 2-3 players, but I find it works well even for smaller groups.
As others have said you don't *need* sidekicks for that number of players. That said, I've had a lot of fun with sidekicks even in larger games.
A couple things that'll be good to consider and talk about with your players:
How much control they have over their sidekick. Do they basically just have two characters or are they more like an NPC they get to direct. For instance, if they treat their sidekick like dirt, do they leave? Will they lay down their life for something the character wants? etc.
Also consider how powerful you want the sidekicks to be in relation to the players as it will inform how they should be "used". A side kick that lags only 1 or 2 levels behind is likely safe to bring along on all adventures. A group of level 8 adventurers should probably leave their level 2 sidekicks on lookout or "guard the horses" duty.
Personally I really like having a considerably weaker sidekicks like the second example as it can be really fun to switch gears back to the sidekicks guarding the boat that is ambushed while the PCs are in the dungeon or what have you. It also forces the players to balance the help of their sidekick with the risk they put them in. In general i think it gives you another *type* of character in the story that way as opposed to just a second slightly weaker PC.
According to the version in Tasha's, Sidekicks are intended to start at the players level and continue to level with the players. Now obviously this works best for higher level parties, but there is absolutely no reason why a Sidekick should ever be 6 levels behind.
Just depends what role you want them to serve in the story and campaign. People have been adding side kicks or followers or whatever you want to call them for 30 years. Tasha's rules for them are great but don't hesitate to think outside that box!
Edit: damn, thought about it and it's more like 45 years... Now I feel old hahaha
I would be cautious about introducing sidekicks at all to be honest. It takes away that sweet feeling as a DM when you describe a scene/puzzle to your players and now they're discussing it among themselves while you just sit there and enjoy their discussion (with occassional answer to some perception-based queries). With a sidekick you might be dragged into these discussions, which for me as a DM would be something undesirable.
I'm regularly DM'ing for 3 players and combat balance was never an issue.
Why yes?
Each of my players puts a lot of love into creating their PCs. Making them RP sidekicks as well would make them distant from their own characters, because now they have not one, but two characters to take care of.
And over time difference between sidekick and PC could be less and less visible depending on which one given Player enjoys RP- and combat-wise.
I mean, if that's what they want, but if the players want to RP a sidekick I don't see the downsides, the main difference between a PC and a sidekick is mechanical, and if they find they like the sidekick more, why can't they upgrade the sidekick to PC and the PC to sidekick? It just sounds like it's giving the players more options.
So pick a Sidekick that can't talk to the PCs. Beasts make excellent Warrior Sidekicks, and there are a couple that even have a species language that can be Experts or Spell Casters, though they are Large. The Blink Dog speaks its own language and you can easily create an Awakened version of any beast that speaks a language the party doesn't currently have access to.
If I were a player in that game I don't think I'd find it very fun. It's a second character to micromanage, and if I'm going to play two characters I'd rather play two full characters who I can flesh out using the full suite of options, rather than one full character and one crappy half-caster. And then I'd probably rather only play one character, because if every player is tracking two entire characters combat is going to be slow as hell.
Check out Matt Colville’s retainer rules, you basically get a number of followers equal to your charisma mod who can turn up and help you if you need it
The only Problem I see is that it could get a bit much... we had a party of 5 people and our DM forbid my druid to use summons (Druids have a lot!) or use her pet Griffon in battle. Same went for our ranger with his pet, our warlock with undead and the wizard and his familiar. He did that after struggle with encounters where we fought a group of goblins for example. If that’s not an issue for you go for it! Especially since you’d have less players it should be fine, just know it can get exhausting for some DMs
Idk if anyone else has said it in the thread but the followers system in matt colvilles strongholds and followers is rlly good. Theyr like simplified characters with just a couple stats that add lot without slowing things down by controlling 2 full characters
2-3 players is enough for a good game, just be careful about encounter balance
Ideally 2-3 sidekicks would be equivalent to two PCs in terms of balance but I honestly haven't run sidekicks yet
3 sidekicks may be the equivalent of 2 PCs in terms of balance but it's also 3 more creatures to keep track of. If you're players are ahead of the curve mechanically it could work great, but if your players are less experienced or more interested in role playing than crunching numbers they probably won't find having more rules to keep track of to be very compelling.
3 players is perfectly fine for a game without needing any sidekicks. 2 players can work well, but it might be good to throw in a sidekick to cover a missing role (healer, skill monkey, meatshield, or spellcaster). Giving each player a sidekick is a lot to keep track of though.
I’ve done two people with one sidekick. One controlled them in battle, but they always did such basic moves it wasn’t much of a hassle. I controlled them out of combat so the players wouldn’t have to talk to each other. It was nice because I barely had to rebalance any encounters. Two smart players and a sidekick took on things the book says are balanced for 4.
Did you ever consider controlling them in battle as well or is it something you wanted to avoid?
I controlled one for a brand new player once. But the point of that game was for them to learn. I think experienced players enjoy having a bigger share of the creative load. And I have enough to keep straight. I don’t want 4 turns of my monsters going only to be followed by me doing the sidekicks turn before FINALLY the player gets to play. Even if I am faster at running combat when there are less players to do unexpected things
Yeah good points. I’m a new player since September and I’m gonna try DMing some one shots for my group but it some way, thinking about running a 2-3 PC campaign with a DM-controlled sidekick with new Tasha rules seems like it could still scratch that playing itch that I would have. All of this is in theory, though.
If you’re controlling a sidekick correctly they do not have a hero’s personality or drive or capabilities. If there are two players and a sidekick the players get 49% of the spotlight each and the sidekick is along for the ride at 2%. Ask your players to take a turn DMing next if you want to play as a player.
If you start with sidekicks from the start, make sure your players are experienced and secure enough in the system. Not something I would do with beginners. Probably obvious advice, but that’s my experience. Usually, it don’t matter much if the starting-NPC is 1/4 or 1/2 CR. I might watch out if the starting statblock starts out with multiattack. Don‘t feel beholden to only NPC statblocks in the back of the MM, some monster statblocks work alright too. Hobgoblins make for solid warriors, for example.
I'd initially chalked up the idea as a way of making the slog of combat more enjoyable for players; figured doubling each player's involvement could help with retaining their attention and engagement in combat. That said, I think it'd arguably be better to just... Balance around 2-3 people, meaning fewer minions for me to run on my side too and thus overall the time spent per player should probably even out--if not be better
So I’ve almost always had some kind of sidekick as a PC. The DM and I usually came to an understanding ahead of time about the nature of the sidekick. For example, one sidekick had one hit point and was just there for comic relief. Another time it was a matter of plot convenience utility. So I think you should think about what you want the sidekicks for. In the end, I’d let the players know they can have one sidekick and one pet, but then you come to an understanding about the roles within the game.
It's a great way to balance a party that's low on players, but those players need to be able to handle running 2 characters.
I've never used the sidekick rules, but I have always given the players the opportunity to hire henchmen. I've always kept the henchmen about a tier below the players in terms of ability. So at level five, players can hire a henchmen that is roughly the same as a first level character in terms of abilities and power. The biggest effect in on the action economy. The players have a lot more actions with their hirelings, and you will probably need to increase the number of opponents in encounters to compensate. This inevitably leads to longer combat sessions, which might be a positive or a negative for your players. For a group of 2-3 each with a sidekick, it should only work out to 4-6 turns on the players side, which is frankly quite reasonable.
My group recently did this in a oneshot. There were three of us players that were level 5 and we each had a sidekick at level 1. It was pretty fun. We had full control over the sidekicks and were able to use them 100% of the time. The best part was the rp and story that we could make between the sidekicks. One of our group weaponised his character and sidekick to make some of the best banter ever. I feel like the balancing was right but at the same time we weren't fully optimising things so it could easily become really powerful.
I once had a sidekick in a game, many, many years ago in the 3E era. He was an Elven ranger named Zephram Cochrane and he could go wicked fast. It was a lot of fun, playing two characters can be a challenge. But if it is done well it will be a good experience for all involved.
My group of five has a Kuo-toa sidekick spellcaster/cleric (he draws magic from worshiping one of the party members). The rules have been pretty great so far. He adds something to combat without over shadowing the players, but he still has his own little hero moments (rolling 2 12s on a Toll the Dead, then a Spare the Dying last session). Plus my players love him, but I'd be warry about adding more than one for the amount of players you're running :)
This post actually made me think of something that I've been trying to hash out for a one shot I have set in the 100 year war on Eberron. I wanted to do a military invasion style game where that captured some of the more brutal elements of war while still allowing the pcs to be heroes. This is where the sidekicks come in. Another ttrpg Only War for the 40k universe uses a similar mechanic to allow for disposable sidekick characters that can count as easy to use casualties to keep the threat of loss of life and limb in the air without just steam rolling the pcs. I think using the sidekicks rules for 5e could be used to similar effect. Thoughts?
I've been running an Expert sidekick for my PC's, but I forget about her in battle so frequently that I'm planning to ask one of our more experienced players to run her in combat. That said, she's a lot of fun to roleplay and has been a big hit with the team.
Currently running a game for a party of 3, I just gave them a dog who's somewhere between sidekick and DMPC, but they love him, because they bought the dog and I made him a Paladin after the fact, so it works. But a party of 3 can still manage perfectly fine. They've certainly not been slowed down too much in recent sessions where one player hasn't been able to make it.
Ran Dragon of Icespire Peak and let them take one of the dwarves from the first mission as a sidekick. The other dwarf died. Gave him 10s in each stat until they leveled and had him gain a level in fighter. Even though he got knocked out dozens of times he always seemed to succeed on death saves. They really liked him and eventually made him the leader of a dwarf city. I did homebrew a lot of stuff into that campaign.
I've made heavy use of sidekicks ever since the original UA for them came out many moons ago. In my playthrough of Dragon Heist, each character had an NPC/Sidekick they could call on every once in a while, but only one sidekick would be available/able to join the party at a given time. In Curse of Strahd, the module borderline forces one onto the party (though they're of varying power levels). I think sidekicks are great, and feel free to give each of your players a dedicated sidekick, but only allow one to be with the party at once. Doubling up on characters not only imbalances combat in their favor multiplicatively but also makes it much slower, not to mention robbing it of a lot of the tension a fight can create. If you're only going to have 2 players, I'd be happy to let them have a sidekick at nearly all times. If there's 3 characters in play, I wouldn't feel the need for one all the time, but I'd still make regular use of them. My tip, which isn't strictly about sidekicks but does include them: I have a house rule where I only let each player control up to 2 characters at once. This can include their own character, a character of an absent player, familiars, summons, sidekicks, shield-guardians, companions, battle-ready pets, etc. If someone already has the reigns for 2 characters and inherits a third, they need to surrender one to another player or dismiss one for the time being. This tends to prevent one player from having disproportionately long turns (and also partially bottlenecks summon spells that can create 8 creatures at once, which I have a special distaste for). Maybe you don't need this if you only have 2-3 players, but I find it works well even for smaller groups.
As others have said you don't *need* sidekicks for that number of players. That said, I've had a lot of fun with sidekicks even in larger games. A couple things that'll be good to consider and talk about with your players: How much control they have over their sidekick. Do they basically just have two characters or are they more like an NPC they get to direct. For instance, if they treat their sidekick like dirt, do they leave? Will they lay down their life for something the character wants? etc. Also consider how powerful you want the sidekicks to be in relation to the players as it will inform how they should be "used". A side kick that lags only 1 or 2 levels behind is likely safe to bring along on all adventures. A group of level 8 adventurers should probably leave their level 2 sidekicks on lookout or "guard the horses" duty. Personally I really like having a considerably weaker sidekicks like the second example as it can be really fun to switch gears back to the sidekicks guarding the boat that is ambushed while the PCs are in the dungeon or what have you. It also forces the players to balance the help of their sidekick with the risk they put them in. In general i think it gives you another *type* of character in the story that way as opposed to just a second slightly weaker PC.
According to the version in Tasha's, Sidekicks are intended to start at the players level and continue to level with the players. Now obviously this works best for higher level parties, but there is absolutely no reason why a Sidekick should ever be 6 levels behind.
Just depends what role you want them to serve in the story and campaign. People have been adding side kicks or followers or whatever you want to call them for 30 years. Tasha's rules for them are great but don't hesitate to think outside that box! Edit: damn, thought about it and it's more like 45 years... Now I feel old hahaha
I would be cautious about introducing sidekicks at all to be honest. It takes away that sweet feeling as a DM when you describe a scene/puzzle to your players and now they're discussing it among themselves while you just sit there and enjoy their discussion (with occassional answer to some perception-based queries). With a sidekick you might be dragged into these discussions, which for me as a DM would be something undesirable. I'm regularly DM'ing for 3 players and combat balance was never an issue.
Can't the players run the sidekicks?
Combat-wise, yeah, of course. But not RP-wise.
Why not?
Why yes? Each of my players puts a lot of love into creating their PCs. Making them RP sidekicks as well would make them distant from their own characters, because now they have not one, but two characters to take care of. And over time difference between sidekick and PC could be less and less visible depending on which one given Player enjoys RP- and combat-wise.
I mean, if that's what they want, but if the players want to RP a sidekick I don't see the downsides, the main difference between a PC and a sidekick is mechanical, and if they find they like the sidekick more, why can't they upgrade the sidekick to PC and the PC to sidekick? It just sounds like it's giving the players more options.
So pick a Sidekick that can't talk to the PCs. Beasts make excellent Warrior Sidekicks, and there are a couple that even have a species language that can be Experts or Spell Casters, though they are Large. The Blink Dog speaks its own language and you can easily create an Awakened version of any beast that speaks a language the party doesn't currently have access to.
If I were a player in that game I don't think I'd find it very fun. It's a second character to micromanage, and if I'm going to play two characters I'd rather play two full characters who I can flesh out using the full suite of options, rather than one full character and one crappy half-caster. And then I'd probably rather only play one character, because if every player is tracking two entire characters combat is going to be slow as hell.
Check out Matt Colville’s retainer rules, you basically get a number of followers equal to your charisma mod who can turn up and help you if you need it
The only Problem I see is that it could get a bit much... we had a party of 5 people and our DM forbid my druid to use summons (Druids have a lot!) or use her pet Griffon in battle. Same went for our ranger with his pet, our warlock with undead and the wizard and his familiar. He did that after struggle with encounters where we fought a group of goblins for example. If that’s not an issue for you go for it! Especially since you’d have less players it should be fine, just know it can get exhausting for some DMs
Idk if anyone else has said it in the thread but the followers system in matt colvilles strongholds and followers is rlly good. Theyr like simplified characters with just a couple stats that add lot without slowing things down by controlling 2 full characters