# The Pixie is up!



## Obryn (Oct 7, 2011)

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (October: In the Works)

They look pretty decent.  As promised, flight has an altitude limit (thank goodness).  They also have a way to miniaturize items for their size.

Am I wrong to have hoped they operated a bit less like Small creatures and more like Tiny ones?  Well, they'd probably be only marginally playable if so...

-O


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Oct 7, 2011)

While I was also hoping that they would have had more unique... deficiencies related to their size, I think they are handled pretty well as a PC race. I look forward to seeing one in action.

The Witch on the other hand... we didn't really get enough to go on. We know that it will be an Arcane Controller and will use Wizard powers, so pretty much just a wizard build, which is fine, but from what we're seeing, it better get some really standout class features, or something, because otherwise... just a wizard with a free feat and different flavour text (and probably a few less other things).


----------



## Xris Robin (Oct 7, 2011)

Tiny creatures can end their turn in someone's square.  That brings up odd thoughts about defenders.

Also,  "When wielding a weapon of your size, you follow the same rules that  Small creatures do."  What does, when wielding a weapon of your size  mean?  Unless Feywild has new tiny weapons, do I have to use Shrink on  everything?  I also notice Shrink makes things appropriate for me to  use, but doesn't mention what size that is.  I'm a little confused.

So, I Shrink items to my size, but then I treat that as if I were small?  So I can't use two-handed weapons?  But if I Shrink it, it's my size.  So I'm very confused.

EDIT: Since shrunken items stay that way until off your person, I'm guessing it's meant to combine with Wee Warrior to act as if you were small.  They didn't want to come up with new tiny weapon rules.  I dunno why Wee Warrior doesn't say to just use the small rules, but it seems to work out that way.

So Pixie Dust is your REAL racial power, Shrink is just a funky rules workaround.


----------



## Nyronus (Oct 7, 2011)

With just a pinch of fairy dust and happy thoughts, even you can fly...


----------



## the Jester (Oct 7, 2011)

Since items retain game stats when you use shrink on them, does that mean a pixie with a pixie-sized longspear has a reach of 2?


----------



## Kzach (Oct 7, 2011)

I think Pixies will be the first race I'm going to ban from my games. Not only is it stupid, but without clarification on how opportunity attacks work for tiny creatures, I'm just not interested in dealing with the head frack of it.


Nemesis Destiny said:


> The Witch on the other hand... we didn't really get enough to go on. We know that it will be an Arcane Controller and will use Wizard powers, so pretty much just a wizard build, which is fine, but from what we're seeing, it better get some really standout class features, or something, because otherwise... just a wizard with a free feat and different flavour text (and probably a few less other things).




Oh yay, another arcane controller. They could've made it a dozen other things that would've better suited the entire witch 'schtick' but no, they went with something we already have three and a half of (wizard, mage, bladesinger & warlock). I really would've preferred it to be a ranged primal striker with leader secondary. Arcane doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Oct 7, 2011)

> The Pixie is up!




But not very high!!!


God, this is gonna be a mess. A total rules bag of monkeys with that racial ability. Shrik this and what does it do, does the pixie need to carry it or can anyone use it?

What is the weight, and the range, and the ......


Why oh why did they need to make a tiny race. 4E was going so well without them.

Jsut call them the small side of small and be done with it, like golaths are the large side of medium.

I think I will be houseruling this uuy to small and removing the second racial power.,.

Ahh, better than advil and aspirin together.


----------



## Xris Robin (Oct 7, 2011)

But Shrink answers those questions.  No, the pixie doesn't have to carry it, but then it reverts to normal size after the pixie's next extended rest.  The game statistics, including weight, remain the same.

In simple terms, shrink all your equipment, treat it as if you were small.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Oct 7, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Oh yay, another arcane controller. They could've made it a dozen other things that would've better suited the entire witch 'schtick' but no, they went with something we already have three and a half of (wizard, mage, bladesinger & warlock). I really would've preferred it to be a ranged primal striker with leader secondary. Arcane doesn't even make sense.



I don't mind Arcane, though Primal would have worked just as well, maybe better. I don't buy divine or psionic for a witch.

Given their reliance on Wizard spells, I get that they needed to make it an Arcane Controller, I just wish they hadn't. I would have liked to see another Arcane or Primal Leader, perhaps. Maybe Arcane AND Primal.

That said, 4e's rules bloat is getting out of hand, and I don't blame them for having classes just use other classes' stuff at this point. I just wish they would have thought of that earlier and not made so many derivative ideas their own class.

If fact, most of the classes they put out after PHB1 should have been builds of existing classes rather than separate entities. That's another ball of wax entirely though.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 7, 2011)

I rather like the pixie. They'll have to clarify a few things, absolutely, but overall it's going to produce some really interesting builds and character concepts once everyone knows how to use them correctly.

Ultimately, they're small-sized creatures caught in some kind of dimension-warping field that alters the space immediately around them to create the effect of their being tiny. Ignore the fluff and change their origin and you have something from the Far Realm. <3


----------



## Mengu (Oct 7, 2011)

Pixie vampire named Mosquiote? It has to be done.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Oct 7, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> But Shrink answers those questions.  No, the pixie doesn't have to carry it, but then it reverts to normal size after the pixie's next extended rest.  The game statistics, including weight, remain the same.
> 
> In simple terms, shrink all your equipment, treat it as if you were small.




No, it is not that simple. What about all the stuff about damage and such? Reach, etc? 

And until the next extended rest is a long time. Take an hour to get twelve items tiny-sized and the whole party can use them all day. How does that work?

It will be a pain in the neck.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 7, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Since items retain game stats when you use shrink on them, does that mean a pixie with a pixie-sized longspear has a reach of 2?



Yes, but the pixie can't use it (it's two handed, and the pixie treats shrunken weapons as if it were a small creature using the regular-sized version - get it? - it's a little convoluted), and it's an improvised 1-handed weapon for a non-tiny creature.  So that's a pretty theoreticaly and meaningless 'yes.'  ;(

Shrink + Wee Warrior = Pixies are Small for most combat purposes.


----------



## Xris Robin (Oct 7, 2011)

Did you not READ the power?  Because no, all those are answered.  "While shrunk, the target keeps its game statistics, such as damage dice and weight".  Damage is the same.  Reach would be the same, although there aren't many weapons you can wield that would have reach, because you use the Small restrictions.  A shrunken weapon is a improvised one-handed weapon to a non-Tiny creature, so there's no point in shrinking items for the rest of the party unless they are also pixies.

It really is simple assuming you actually, you know, read the power text.  Since it mentions every issue you've brought up so far specifically.  There may actually be issues with it, but you haven't brought any up yet.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Oct 7, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> Did you not READ the power?  Because no, all those are answered.




Well, if you are only gonna go by only what is covered in the power text and I am thinking outside the text in wider uses, I guess we have nothing to talk about.

Good day.


----------



## MrBeens (Oct 7, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> Did you not READ the power?  Because no, all those are answered.  "While shrunk, the target keeps its game statistics, such as damage dice and weight".  Damage is the same.  Reach would be the same, although there aren't many weapons you can wield that would have reach, because you use the Small restrictions.  A shrunken weapon is a improvised one-handed weapon to a non-Tiny creature, so there's no point in shrinking items for the rest of the party unless they are also pixies.
> 
> It really is simple assuming you actually, you know, read the power text.  Since it mentions every issue you've brought up so far specifically.  There may actually be issues with it, but you haven't brought any up yet.




Who are you actually (rather angrily) replying too?


----------



## Xris Robin (Oct 7, 2011)

MrBeens said:


> Who are you actually (rather angrily) replying too?



Dice4Hire.


----------



## JPL (Oct 7, 2011)

I SAID GOOD DAY!

Nice work, WotC.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 7, 2011)

Ooh, both of these were done after I finished my part in Heroes of the Feywild, so I was curious to how they'd turn out!

The pixie looks mighty interesting. Not for all games, but for those who with more whimsy and a heavier fairy tale bent.

Witch seems promising. You could easily use the Witch to mimic the Al-Qadim sha'ir (using your familiar/genie to change your daily spells). For that alone, I give it a thumb up!


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Oct 7, 2011)

I love the fairy race! Like [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] I wish their Tiny nature was more unique but what they came up with is a good compromise that works well. 

Somehow my fairy ranger character has to get the Arcane Familiar feat with a Fiddling Grig:









Mengu said:


> Pixie vampire named Mosquiote? It has to be done.




Like the fairies from the Labyrinth! Brilliant! http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Fairies_(Labyrinth)


----------



## Xris Robin (Oct 7, 2011)

Klaus said:


> Witch seems promising. You could easily use the Witch to mimic the Al-Qadim sha'ir (using your familiar/genie to change your daily spells). For that alone, I give it a thumb up!



Why bother?  Sha'ir is the next wizard subclass, in the Elemental book, I think.   We already know that.


----------



## Zaran (Oct 7, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> While I was also hoping that they would have had more unique... deficiencies related to their size, I think they are handled pretty well as a PC race. I look forward to seeing one in action.
> 
> The Witch on the other hand... we didn't really get enough to go on. We know that it will be an Arcane Controller and will use Wizard powers, so pretty much just a wizard build, which is fine, but from what we're seeing, it better get some really standout class features, or something, because otherwise... just a wizard with a free feat and different flavour text (and probably a few less other things).




I thought the pixie was done well.  People are already complaining about how an 18 strength pixie can fly lightweight PCs over a chasm.  Whooptie-do.

Yeah you would think a witch would be just a Fey-Pact warlock...


----------



## Klaus (Oct 7, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> Why bother?  Sha'ir is the next wizard subclass, in the Elemental book, I think.   We already know that.



'Cause that is so far away?


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Oct 7, 2011)

I want to see a Pixie assassin that casts Shrink on a bunch of watermelons, has them served like a bunch of grapes to the evil dictator king, then waits for his next extended rest to collect the reward.


----------



## technoextreme (Oct 7, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I think Pixies will be the first race I'm going to ban from my games. Not only is it stupid, but without clarification on how opportunity attacks work for tiny creatures, I'm just not interested in dealing with the head frack of it.



The rules have been there since the start of the edition and its the same thing for small creatures.  Any space that a creature has threatening reach in including its own space provokes opportunity attacks from it.  That is why its flight altitude is stuck at 1 otherwise it would never provoke opportunity attacks.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 7, 2011)

I love how a Tiny person with inches-long arms has the same reach as a grown human.

I love how a pixie can only fly 5' up, but there's no explanation why.

I gotta love 4e!


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 7, 2011)

Obviously a pixie's 5 ft. reach represents the traditional flight combat technique pixie adventurers perfect, wherein they strafe past enemies then return to their starting position. It's all abstract. Also, magic.

And the 1-square elevation limit actually matches to most depictions I've seen of tiny fairies. They hover over things, but almost never fly high above things. It's not their schtick.

I think they're nifty. Personally I would love a pixie fighter, getting all defender-y on people.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 7, 2011)

RangerWickett said:


> Obviously a pixie's 5 ft. reach represents the traditional flight combat technique pixie adventurers perfect, wherein they strafe past enemies then return to their starting position. It's all abstract. Also, magic.
> 
> And the 1-square elevation limit actually matches to most depictions I've seen of tiny fairies. They hover over things, but almost never fly high above things. It's not their schtick.
> 
> I think they're nifty. Personally I would love a pixie fighter, getting all defender-y on people.



Specially if said pixie kept yelling "have at thee!" as he struck enemies!


----------



## captainspud (Oct 7, 2011)

Anybody have a link or book reference to art of a D&D pixie from this edition? I wanna sculpt a mini of one tonight, but I've never seen one in D&D canon so I don't know what to make it look like.

Also: what's the most ridiculous melee class you can do well with CHA+INT/DEX? Off the top of my head, it's a full match for a Rogue, a primary half-match for a Ranger, Swordmage, or Assassin, and a secondary half-match for a Barbarian or Paladin... hrm...


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Oct 7, 2011)

Yeah, there are tons of cutesy flavour options for pixie characters. Love it.



Zaran said:


> I thought the pixie was done well.  People are already complaining about how an 18 strength pixie can fly lightweight PCs over a chasm.  Whooptie-do.



 While I agree that it's a whoopty-doo, they also can't due to their altitude limit, unless they feel like going to the bottom of that chasm and up the other side. It would work for a river though.



> Yeah you would think a witch would be just a Fey-Pact warlock...



Yes, or a Shaman, or a Wizard with the Familiar feat, or an Artificer, or a Bard, or any of those with some multiclass thrown in, or hybrid, or ...you get the idea.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Oct 7, 2011)

captainspud said:


> Anybody have a link or book reference to art of a D&D pixie from this edition? I wanna sculpt a mini of one tonight, but I've never seen one in D&D canon so I don't know what to make it look like.
> 
> Also: what's the most ridiculous melee class you can do well with CHA+INT/DEX? Off the top of my head, it's a full match for a Rogue, a primary half-match for a Ranger, Swordmage, or Assassin, and a secondary half-match for a Barbarian or Paladin... hrm...



You could build a fun melee sorcerer using [MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION]' material from his article in Dragon 390, and supplement with as many close powers as you could find. Chaos Sorcerer would make a particularly fun fit.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Oct 7, 2011)

captainspud said:


> Also: what's the most ridiculous melee class you can do well with CHA+INT/DEX? Off the top of my head, it's a full match for a Rogue, a primary half-match for a Ranger, Swordmage, or Assassin, and a secondary half-match for a Barbarian or Paladin... hrm...




It's a full match for a Hexblade, Executioner, Bard, and Vampire.  A primary half-match for Monk and Artificer.  And a secondary half-match for Warlord.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 7, 2011)

Klaus said:


> Witch seems promising. You could easily use the Witch to mimic the Al-Qadim sha'ir (using your familiar/genie to change your daily spells). For that alone, I give it a thumb up!




I had the same thought. Though their best spells will surely be different, and they'll probably have their own special effect, the witch and the sha'ir just seem to be the transmuter+cat/evoker+genie versions of each other, almost like the various flavors of Sentinel Druid.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 7, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Well, if you are only gonna go by only what is covered in the power text and I am thinking outside the text in wider uses, I guess we have nothing to talk about.
> 
> Good day.




What are the 'wider uses' you are thinking of? I really don't see anything that isn't pretty cleanly handled by the power, myself. It seems a rather elegant approach to make ti all work without creating an entirely new weapon size system.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 7, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I think Pixies will be the first race I'm going to ban from my games. Not only is it stupid, but without clarification on how opportunity attacks work for tiny creatures, I'm just not interested in dealing with the head frack of it.




Err... exactly what clarification is needed? The rules have had this covered since the PH, and that's ignoring the pixie's "Wee Warrior" ability that gives it a reach of 1. Unless you think opportunity attacks for creatures with reach 1 need clarification?



Dice4Hire said:


> No, it is not that simple. What about all the stuff about damage and such? Reach, etc?
> 
> And until the next extended rest is a long time. Take an hour to get twelve items tiny-sized and the whole party can use them all day. How does that work?




There's a "game stats remain unchanged" clause that covers your first question, and the power itself ends if the pixie puts something down. I'm not sure where the question lies here.


----------



## JPL (Oct 7, 2011)

RangerWickett said:


> Obviously a pixie's 5 ft. reach represents the traditional flight combat technique pixie adventurers perfect, wherein they strafe past enemies then return to their starting position. It's all abstract. Also, magic.




Yep.  They dart in like hummingbirds, unleash pixie steel, and dart back out again.  Stay up close and you get squashed, and even if the Big Folk miss, there's backdrafts that can knock you right out of the air.  Countless generations of adaptation in the magic-rich Feywild give some unique abilities to the locals --- eladrin teleportation, gnome invisibility --- and for little guys like the pixies, it's a whole suite of talents and the training to use them.  They're natural giant-fighters, just like dwarves . . . but to pixies, we're the giants.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Oct 7, 2011)

I fall into the camp that thinks _Shrink_ was poorly worded as well.  I get the intent - Pixies count as Small for using equipment, and the player/DM can ignore the bits about re-sizing weapons and equipment.  It's an elegant solution that wasn't written elegantly.


----------



## JPL (Oct 7, 2011)

Now I gotta pitch a Dragon article on the pixies of Athas --- "Sectaurs" type little bastards made out of chitin, arcane magic, and angry.


----------



## Mirtek (Oct 7, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> While I agree that it's a whoopty-doo, they also can't due to their altitude limit, unless they feel like going to the bottom of that chasm and up the other side.



 Altitude limit only means you crash if you end your turn higher than that, you can fly higher as far as you have speed. Thus a "running" pixie can fly as high as 24 squares (with action point), she would just crash afterwards (or cross a 23 squares wide chasm, no matter how deep it is)


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Oct 7, 2011)

lol - Sectaurs... I remember those. Even had a few. The things you think are cool when you're a kid 

Seriously though, it would work for Athas.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Oct 7, 2011)

Mirtek said:


> Altitude limit only means you crash if you end your turn higher than that, you can fly higher as far as you have speed



Yeah. I guess 'chasm' implied to me a much wider gap - one that couldn't just as easily be crossed by other means.


----------



## Drammattex (Oct 7, 2011)

A friend of mine played a pixie way back when, in our 2e game. Vicious little bastard, and he came from the _benevolent_ strain of their race. Their cousins were malicious tricksters that used to bind mortals to trees by their own entrails when it suited them. Neither race flew, but they could turn invisible and throw blinding globes of light/pixie dust. I'll probably have to bring them back into play now; if I do, I may swap out flight for something else, to keep their story consistent.


----------



## Matt James (Oct 7, 2011)

I played a Pixie during playtesting. I love 'em. Very cool little buggers!


----------



## hemera (Oct 7, 2011)

I kind of want to make a pixie blackguard in barbed plate with a pick since everyone and everything is bigger than me. That and the thought of a tiny spiky gnat swinging a giant pickaxe just seems funny to me.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 7, 2011)

Now to write up one of these:


----------



## blalien (Oct 7, 2011)

This is the best thing I've seen from D&D in a long time.  I think I need to get my dwarf killed off so I can bring back Flufflepuff Faceripper.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Oct 7, 2011)

The pixie looks pretty cool. Now, what sort of fun racial feats can be dreamed up for it? hehehe. Clearly we could get some kind of Paragon enhanced flight feat.

I know, A Pixie Animal Master with a small flying animal. Hi-ho Thrush, and away!


----------



## Zaran (Oct 7, 2011)

I did a Pixie Rogue in 3.5 as a NPC.  She did 1 point of damage with her rapier but it was enough for the 8d6 sneak attack that went with it.  We always joked about the fountains of blood that came from her little needle attacks to vital points.


----------



## blalien (Oct 7, 2011)

Zaran said:


> I thought the pixie was done well.  People are already complaining about how an 18 strength pixie can fly lightweight PCs over a chasm.  Whooptie-do.




Holy crap you're right.  The carrying capacity rules don't adjust for size.  I guess we can assume that whatever magic keeps the pixie afloat also allows them to carry people hundreds of times their own weight.


----------



## Vael (Oct 7, 2011)

I quite like the Pixie, it looks good. Now, first, I'm going to need to shorten the long list of possible Pixie PCs I want to play, and then I'll need to find some good Pixie-ish miniatures.


----------



## Xris Robin (Oct 7, 2011)

blalien said:


> Holy crap you're right.  The carrying capacity rules don't adjust for size.  I guess we can assume that whatever magic keeps the pixie afloat also allows them to carry people hundreds of times their own weight.



Yes, but pixies can't fly unless carrying a normal load.  So your pixie better have enough strength to carry an entire person without it being a heavy load or they have to walk and carry them.

I guess pixies have like, spider or ant strength going, but it doesn't work for the magic of flying.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Oct 8, 2011)

Looks like another 4E adaptation of Arcana Evolved.  Our AE campaign had two sprytes, one an unfettered (swashbuckling type) and the other an akashic/magister (played like a lore character).  

It didn't matter what their names were.  Because of all the trouble they got into, the rest of the group just called them "Frick and Frack".


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 8, 2011)

RangerWickett said:


> Obviously a pixie's 5 ft. reach represents the traditional flight combat technique pixie adventurers perfect, wherein they strafe past enemies then return to their starting position. It's all abstract. Also, magic.



Magic, the universal explanation!



RangerWickett said:


> And the 1-square elevation limit actually matches to most depictions I've seen of tiny fairies. They hover over things, but almost never fly high above things. It's not their schtick.



So my avant garde pixie PC _can_ ignore the altitude limit if I so choose? 

Something tells me my DM won't go for that. I'll stick with the universal explanation.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 8, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I love how a pixie can only fly 5' up, but there's no explanation why.



Ground Effect.

Seriously, though, the Pixie /can/ fly more than 5' up, he just falls if he ends his turn more than 5' up...  So, while pixies can't routinely spend every battle with melee monsters flying out of reach, they /can/ get to any modestly elevated (30 or 60', more if it 'runs') terrain the DM provides...


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Oct 8, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Ground Effect.
> 
> Seriously, though, the Pixie /can/ fly more than 5' up, he just falls if he ends his turn more than 5' up...  So, while pixies can't routinely spend every battle with melee monsters flying out of reach, they /can/ get to any modestly elevated (30 or 60', more if it 'runs') terrain the DM provides...



This is true, but it also raises some other points.

If the pixie character up on a 60' ledge gets dropped (monsters DO have ranged attacks, remember?), how is the party healer going to even get to them? How about when they get jumped by the equally-mobile lurker? No way for Mr. Defender to get in there and present a juicier target. How about when the enemy controller slides them off that ledge and they fail their save?

Flying out of range is a good tactic, sure, but it's not the best or only one. Sometimes, it's not even a good idea.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 8, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Seriously, though, the Pixie /can/ fly more than 5' up, he just falls if he ends his turn more than 5' up...  So, while pixies can't routinely spend every battle with melee monsters flying out of reach, they /can/ get to any modestly elevated (30 or 60', more if it 'runs') terrain the DM provides...



Yeah, but currently, so can eladrin, Thieves with Acrobatic Trick, and anyone with a good Athletics skill. 

In play, I expect this to be much less of a deal than it's being made out to be.

Hell, I remember Earthdawn.  Windlings had none of these restrictions!

-O


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 8, 2011)

I was thinking "Aracna Evolved!", too! Pixies and witches!



> The pixie looks mighty interesting. Not for all games, but for those who with more whimsy and a heavier fairy tale bent.




Well, flavor-wise, sure, but flavor-wise, an orc can have whimsy and a fairy-tale bent. It's good to see it, though I wish they didn't pretend like gnomes didn't already exist in the fluff, there, maybe differentiated them a little bit more (though I suppose they fill pretty similar places).

Mechanics-wise, it seems a little...kludgy. Nothing like taking some nine year old girl who is all pumped about playing a pixie knight and slamming her face-first into the brick wall that is D&D size rules, artificial altitude limits, opportunity attack weirdness, and "it's balanced and that's all the justification we need!" reasoning. Not insurmountable -- a fun concept can power through mechanics weirdness like a hot knife through butter -- but it would be *really* nice if I could play a pixie without having to interface with all those little brute-force fiddly bits. 



> Witch seems promising. You could easily use the Witch to mimic the Al-Qadim sha'ir (using your familiar/genie to change your daily spells). For that alone, I give it a thumb up!




I am surprised it's not a warlock. Given how closely warlock and witch are bound up in fantasy and terminology, it would seem the clear front-runner choice! It even references familiars as sort of pact-related!

Now everything arcane is a pact? Swordmages are just wizards with a "sword pact!" Mages and Wizards are just wizards with a "Book Pact"! 

Depending on the kind of "Witch" archetype you're going for, some sort of arcane-and-primal Warlock seems just friggin' peachy. Another arcane controller might work fine, too, but I'm a little worried that as another wizard-spell-user, it won't have much to distinguish it from the other arcane controllers out there. Witch vs. Wizard|Druid(or even Shaman) Hybrid who picks Enchantment spells...difference? 

Not that WotC seems to care too much about reinventing the wheel (how many different ways can you be a vampire?)...which I'm kind of in favor of! As long as the witch can do something unique and interesting, she probably earns her place in the class pantheon, at least as much as red-headed stepchildren like the Runepriest and the Seeker do. So far she doesn't look that unique or interesting.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 8, 2011)

I really can't understand why they even went the route of tiny.  They ended up having to waste a racial to make it where a pixie has to shrink items in order to use them as a small creature.  

For feck sakes, they could have made the pixie on the low end of small and given the race a better racial ability.  I would rather have the race be given an invisibility power.  

The race could have been handled a lot better.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 8, 2011)

Has anyone figured out how long it's going to take for a 30th level pixie, thats decked out in gear, to shrink all that gear back down after an extended rest?


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 8, 2011)

Couldn't a pixie rogue, whom it using the same space as his fellow PC, pretty much just say they are hiding in the clothes of their friend and gain CA pretty much all the time with a successful Stealth roll?


----------



## Neverfate (Oct 8, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Has anyone figured out how long it's going to take for a 30th level pixie, thats decked out in gear, to shrink all that gear back down after an extended rest?




This is my only issue with the race. I immediately thought of this. If you're pressed for time, you might not even be able to carry everything you haven't shrunken down yet. Bag of Holding becomes a necessity at that point.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Oct 8, 2011)

*sigh*



			
				Shrink Power said:
			
		

> ...The new size ends at the end of your next extended rest *unless the item is on your person.*



This means that you don't have to keep re-shrinking your equipped gear. It's a non-issue.

Really.

Furthermore, pixies also get Pixie Dust, which lets them grant their ally a fly move once per encounter, so Shrink is **not* *a "wasted power" - it is more like a freebie. Much like how changelings get two because their shapeshift is not enough on its own, so they threw in another one.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 8, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> *sigh*
> 
> This means that you don't have to keep re-shrinking your equipped gear. It's a non-issue.
> 
> ...




So they wasted a power that essentially gives the pixie the same qualities of a small character. Should have just made the pixie small to start with.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 8, 2011)

Being able to ride a small creature, squeeze through extremely small things, use "vs larger than you" abilities against almost everything in the game, and being able to share spaces with other creatures opens up a vast array of possibilities in and out of combat.

Making them small for the purpose of weapon use is the cleanest way to do things while retaining those new possibilities.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 8, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Being able to ride a small creature, squeeze through extremely small things, use "vs larger than you" abilities against almost everything in the game, and being able to share spaces with other creatures opens up a vast array of possibilities in and out of combat.
> 
> Making them small for the purpose of weapon use is the cleanest way to do things while retaining those new possibilities.




I thought most of the "larger than you" abilities were against enemies that are one cat size larger.

Edit: So they need to sacrifice common sense for cleanness?


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Oct 8, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Nothing like taking some nine year old girl who is all pumped about playing a pixie knight and slamming her face-first into the brick wall that is D&D size rules, artificial altitude limits, opportunity attack weirdness, and "it's balanced and that's all the justification we need!" reasoning.




I admit it, I'm clearly a nine year old girl. XD

I'm actually now considering buying 4e books entirely so that I can play a pixie. I care less about the mechanics than about the "YAYI'MAFAERIE!" though, but yeah these do look a little brick wall-ish.

...If there has ever been a race suitable for my personality, this is it...


----------



## Dice4Hire (Oct 8, 2011)

snowleopardvk said:


> i admit it, i'm clearly a nine year old girl. Xd
> 
> ...if there has ever been a race suitable for my personality, this is it...




tmi


----------



## Obryn (Oct 8, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> So they wasted a power that essentially gives the pixie the same qualities of a small character. Should have just made the pixie small to start with.



So first you're upset that a Pixie at Epic tier will have to spend a bunch of time re-sizing their stuff every day, and when you're shown that you didn't even read the power in question, you're mad that they _don't?_

You're not just shifting goalposts, you're moving them between the end zones.  I understand you feel obliged to be perpetually negative; it'd be nice if you could at least choose a point and argue it.

Pixies are tiny because, presumably, people who want to play a pixie want to play a Tiny race - a pixie, not a hobbit with wings.  They can resize stuff because otherwise they use different equipment from everyone else, making a nightmare for DMs and players both; it's a way to have a Tiny character that isn't gimped on gear.

If you're worried about Invisibility, remember Racial Utilities.  I expect it will be one of their choices.  (The gear-shrinking power is extra; their real Racial Power is basically the githyanki racial power.)  If they are going oldschool, they might even have some sort of Otto's Irresistible Dance option at some point.

-O


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 8, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I thought most of the "larger than you" abilities were against enemies that are one cat size larger.
> 
> Edit: So they need to sacrifice common sense for cleanness?




Hell yes.

This is a cinematic fantasy game designed for fun times not for "If wizards were real they'd walk like _dis_"


----------



## blalien (Oct 8, 2011)

Obryn said:


> So first you're upset that a Pixie at Epic tier will have to spend a bunch of time re-sizing their stuff every day, and when you're shown that you didn't even read the power in question, you're mad that they _don't?_




ForeverSlayer thrives on complaining about things that don't matter.  The less they matter, the angrier they make him.  If we stopped responding to him he'd go away. (I say with no sense of irony)

*Mod Note:* _Ad hominem_ is usually rude, and always weak rhetoric.  Please stop trying to dismiss the person, rather than the points they make.  Thanks.  ~Umbran

The pixie looks a little clunky, but I imagine once you actually play a couple sessions it will all make sense.  There are really only two new rules the average player will need to learn: how the altitude limit works and what happens when the pixie shares another creature's space.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 8, 2011)

Obryn said:


> So first you're upset that a Pixie at Epic tier will have to spend a bunch of time re-sizing their stuff every day, and when you're shown that you didn't even read the power in question, you're mad that they _don't?_
> 
> You're not just shifting goalposts, you're moving them between the end zones.  I understand you feel obliged to be perpetually negative; it'd be nice if you could at least choose a point and argue it.
> 
> ...




What exactly are you talking about? The two aren't even related so I don't even know where you pull this stuff out of, actually I have a good idea where but I'm not going to say it. The part about the equipment was settled, I had moved on to the fact that they had to create a racial power to make the pixie essentially a small character.  

I'm not mad about anything with regards to the equipment issue. You might want to try getting your information straight before you start assuming.  They went to the trouble of creating an Encounter racial power to shrink items down so you can use them.  The best thing to do was to leave them at small and use that racial for something else. 

I think maybe you don't fully understand when you try and use the goalpost analogy.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 8, 2011)

Obryn said:
			
		

> They can resize stuff because otherwise they use different equipment from everyone else, making a nightmare for DMs and players both; it's a way to have a Tiny character that isn't gimped on gear.



It's too much to ask for from a race, but I'd like D&D in general to not care so much about size. This probably means ditching (or at least loosening) the grid, but man, the things that the game could gain if it just didn't matter if you were 2 feet tall or 20 feet tall are so great that I think it would be WELL EFFING WORTH IT. 

Besides:



			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> This is a cinematic fantasy game designed for fun times not for "If wizards were real they'd walk like dis"



It's good advice, I guess it's just a shame combat doesn't follow it very well. 



			
				blalien said:
			
		

> The pixie looks a little clunky, but I imagine once you actually play a couple sessions it will all make sense. There are really only two new rules the average player will need to learn: how the altitude limit works and what happens when the pixie shares another creature's space.



IMXP, this depends on the player more so than anything else. Some folks will grok the rules stuff pretty quickly, others will grok it well enough to play the thing, others will no doubt feel a desire to house rule the heck out of it, and some will, no matter how many times they try, never quite understand how these different sizes and sharing spaces and things work. 

Personally, I just think it's odd that a race with such a clear existing archetype is hit with such a rules brick. But given the design of 4e combat (and thus 4e powers and thus 90% of the 4e game), they didn't have much of a choice. If they wanted to make a tiny flying character, they must effectively remove most of the tiny and most of the flying, or else it would be A Problem For The Game.

But, hey, I'm generally a Big Fan Of Weirdness, and this race fits the bill. And I'm fond of how adding "vampire" to everything is basically instant humor these days.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Oct 8, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I love how a Tiny person with inches-long arms has the same reach as a grown human.




It reaches an adjacent square. So, if it's able to move around inside it's own square (and so can the opponent) than can get VERY close to each other. Other than a whip, you aren't going to have a reach 2 weapon with pixies.



> I love how a pixie can only fly 5' up, but there's no explanation why.




It's ok if there is no explanation for their fly speed being 6, or their ability to fly at all ... but a 5' ceiling (which likely can be modified through additional feats, paragon paths, etc) is the thing that breaks the believability of the tiny flying magical fey creatures.


----------



## Bold or Stupid (Oct 8, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Yeah, but currently, so can eladrin, Thieves with Acrobatic Trick, and anyone with a good Athletics skill.
> 
> In play, I expect this to be much less of a deal than it's being made out to be.
> 
> ...




But Windling had to walk half the time, flying was very tiring, and couldn't get wet as this made their wings fragile. They had plenty of limitations.

I really like the shrinking gear thing, makes the refs life much easier and I don't mind the altitude limits (would have prefered 10' though).


----------



## Klaus (Oct 8, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> So they wasted a power that essentially gives the pixie the same qualities of a small character. Should have just made the pixie small to start with.



Er... You forgot the *actual* racial power, namely fly 6? Or the racial power that grants an ally the ability to fly 6 squares as a free action? No one wasted anything.


----------



## pauljathome (Oct 8, 2011)

Klaus said:


> E No one wasted anything.




Well, they maybe wasted the opportunity to create a balanced and reasonable pixie .

While its probably not gamebreaking, the pixie is pretty clearly far superior to something like a halfling. Its faster, it can fly, it can hide in its companions squares, and it has absolutely no drawbacks whatsoever from being tiny.

Even with the limitations the ability to fly is very significant, especially at lower levels. All sorts of terrain features can be just ignored.

So it definitely represents a significant power gain over the small races.

In world terms, it also makes little or no sense. All sorts of things stand out as essentially quite silly. A tiny creature's little sword and little shield are every bit as effective as the much larger equivalents its friends wield? It has to come back to within 5 feet of the ground every 6 seconds? While being no more dextrous and only slightly quicker than its 1/2 ling friend it has the same range with its tiny pointy stick as the 1/2 ling does with its much larger one? It is as strong as its human friend despite being 1/64 the weight?

Yeah, yeah, I know. Its magic. Physics and reasonableness need not apply.

I should add that one of my favourite characters was a windling in Earthdawn. Part of what made that character fun was that it PLAYED quite differently from a normal character. Its size constantly mattered. Sometimes it was an advantage, sometimes it was a disadvantage. Its flight was definitely a significant advantage, albeit one that came with drawbacks. Taking a windling warrior was NOT a good power gamers choice since, in that role, the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. It was still probably a viable character but it was definitely sub optimal.

This pixie seems like the opposite to me. No tradeoffs, just benefits. For almost all purposes it really is NOT tiny, it plays as if it is small. Yeah, that makes things easier for WOTC.  But it loses a huge amount in the process.

And I'll bet that this race becomes one of the main power gaming choices for all sorts of silly classes where a pixie really SHOULD SUCK. Or, at least, be significantly suboptimal.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 8, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's too much to ask for from a race, but I'd like D&D in general to not care so much about size. This probably means ditching (or at least loosening) the grid, but man, the things that the game could gain if it just didn't matter if you were 2 feet tall or 20 feet tall are so great that I think it would be WELL EFFING WORTH IT.



It's happening. I think within the next edition or two, size categories smaller than Large will just be fluff labels. Like alignments.

Small size has always been just a sub-category of Medium; despite earlier editions' varying claims to realism, halflings and every other Small monster have always had a 5 ft reach despite the absurdity of it.

4e did away with size modifiers; all that's left are a couple weapon restrictions for Small PCs. And ignoring those is a pretty common house rule. And now 4e has a Tiny race that has all the important trappings of Medium size.

Mark my words, soon size will be as meaningless as the points on Whose Line is it Anyway?



WalterKovacs said:


> It reaches an adjacent square. So, if it's able to move around inside it's own square (and so can the opponent) than can get VERY close to each other. Other than a whip, you aren't going to have a reach 2 weapon with pixies.



Oh a whip, good idea! I'll name my pixie explorer Indiana Bell. And her life quest will be to cure the acrophobia the plagues her race!



WalterKovacs said:


> It's ok if there is no explanation for their fly speed being 6, or their ability to fly at all ... but a 5' ceiling (which likely can be modified through additional feats, paragon paths, etc) is the thing that breaks the believability of the tiny flying magical fey creatures.



Glad we're on the same page.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 8, 2011)

There are living creatures and machines in the REAL WORLD with altitude limits. It's not un_realistic_ in the slightest.

A pixie dealing the same damage as a small creature is due to a number of factors, but more or less is the same way that a rogue can deal extra damage with shuriken.


----------



## babinro (Oct 8, 2011)

How does opportunity attacks work with a pixie?

Do they provoke when a creature leaves an adjacent square or only when a creature leaves the square the pixie occupies?

I'm unclear if the wee warrior is intended to give the pixie reach 1, but not threatening reach 1 for Opportunity Actions.  Of course, no where that I know in the PHB does it say any other class or race gains threatening reach 1 by default either so I'd assume they do.

Besides the above uncertainty, the race certainly feels overpowered when compared to many 4E races.  It is more on par with the super races like Dwarves and Drow.  My friend intends to make a Pixie Vampire, should be fun times.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 8, 2011)

"Moving Provokes: If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy."

Tiny creatures default at lacking an attack that can actually TARGET that square, is all. Pixies get around this.


----------



## keterys (Oct 8, 2011)

babinro said:


> It is more on par with the super races like Dwarves and Drow.



Devil's advocating for a moment, depending on the class you're optimizing, the following races are also considered on par with dwarves and drow by the CharOp boards:

Changeling*
Deva
Dragonborn
Eladrin
Elf
Gnome
Genasi
Githzerai
Goliath
Half-Elf 
Halfling
Half-Orc
Human** 
Kalashtar
Minotaur
Mul
Revenant
Shadar-Kai
Shardmind
Shifter
Thri-Kreen
Tiefling
Vyrloka
Warforged
Wilden

* Less commonly recommended, but very powerful for the right games. 
** Cause I know someone will call me on it: Heroic Effort, Pack Outcast, extra at-will for hybrids and some psi-builds, human is sky blue in _most_ CharOp guides.

So, I mean... I don't know that we need a "super" race category, so much that a very few races like the Shade and Gnoll, aren't quite as popular as the amazing variety of good race options available.

I've played alongside some 4e pixies in playtest, and played one myself last night with the posted rules. They weren't more effective than other options that I noticed.

There were a couple questions about how Tiny should work, that I hope are addressed in the published version of HoF.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 8, 2011)

It has always weirded me that people thing flying is somehow inherently overpowered. As if bows don't exist. As if ground terrain is THE ONLY THING that stands between characters being challenged and characters running roughshod over their enemies. 



			
				pauljathome said:
			
		

> Part of what made that character fun was that it PLAYED quite differently from a normal character




Well, one of the big (and divisive!) things about 4e is that pretty much everyone plays exactly the same way. They've loosened the bonds quite a bit from the PHB, but the maxim is still there, that everything must fit into the same mold, with only slight variations. The Balance Demands It! 



			
				Tequila Sunrise said:
			
		

> Mark my words, soon size will be as meaningless as the points on Whose Line is it Anyway?




Man, I hope so. To me, there are basically three sizes: About Your Size, Too Small, and Too Big. The "Too Small" creatures can be hazards, minions, and swarms. The "Too Big" creatures are battlefield encounters, body parts, and skill challenges. The "About Your Size" creatures are the only ones that can be reliably shoehorned into the grid combat system, and even then details like opportunity attacks and shifting and moving little pieces of plastic around is hardly the most cinematic experience.


----------



## pauljathome (Oct 8, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> There are living creatures and machines in the REAL WORLD with altitude limits. .




Please name a living creature that is limited in ANY of the following ways
1) Stays within 5 ft of the ground (what appears to be the case for pixies until one carefully reads the rules) regardless of incentive to get away from the ground (ie, don't confuse "does not like to fly high" with "cannot fly high")
2) Can fly up higher but must return to within 5 feet every 6 seconds
3) If it is blown higher will suddenly dramatically fall


----------



## pauljathome (Oct 8, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It has always weirded me that people thing flying is somehow inherently overpowered.




Quite powerful? Yes.
Overpowered ? Depends on far too many factors to make a clear decision. It can break some encounters, it is all but irrelevant in others



> Well, one of the big (and divisive!) things about 4e is that pretty much everyone plays exactly the same way.




I admit that this is one of the main reasons that 4e isn't really to my tastes. 

But I reserve the right to note where yet another opportunity (a grand one, in this case) to break OUT of this box is lost.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 8, 2011)

Also note:

The pixie doesn't have "hover", so it must move at least 2 squares in a round while flying or it crashes. It's not a hummingbird.


----------



## Shroomy (Oct 8, 2011)

Klaus said:


> Also note:
> 
> The pixie doesn't have "hover", so it must move at least 2 squares in a round while flying or it crashes. It's not a hummingbird.




They changed that rule and got rid of it.  All hover does now is prevent you from falling when you're stunned.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 8, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> ...The part about the equipment was settled, I had moved on to the fact that they had to create a racial power to make the pixie essentially a small character.
> ...
> They went to the trouble of creating an Encounter racial power to shrink items down so you can use them.  The best thing to do was to leave them at small and use that racial for something else.



Yes, mechanically, they are mostly like a Small character.

Pixies are tiny because when someone wants to play a pixie, they want to play a _super-small_ (aka Tiny) character.  Making them 4' tall would have, frankly, missed the whole point.

In what way is Shrink a "wasted power"?  It lets the Pixie play reasonably at the table without the DM seeding the environment with Tiny objects all over the place.

I mean, what is your objection?  That they made them tiny with workarounds?

As I said in my OP, I _do _wish the Tiny aspect had more teeth to it - in carrying capacity, strength checks, stealth, and so on - but making them completely gimped for equipment and making them unable to work with a weapon-using class isn't what I was looking for.

-O


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Oct 8, 2011)

For those of you who think this is overpowered, how hard would it be to have terrain effects in the air?

Fighting outside on a gusty day? All movement through the air is treated as difficult terrain.

Strong winds in one direction? Moving through the air against the current counts as slowed.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other possibilities, and many of the other "magical" terrain effects from the DMGs may also apply.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 8, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> For those of you who think this is overpowered, how hard would it be to have terrain effects in the air?
> 
> Fighting outside on a gusty day? All movement through the air is treated as difficult terrain.
> 
> ...



That's in the DMG already.   I've consulted the table a few times for my Dark Sun game.  (In which there will be no pixies, seeing as how Wyan of Bodach Blighted all of them.)

-O


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Oct 8, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> Please name a living creature that is limited in ANY of the following ways
> 1) Stays within 5 ft of the ground (what appears to be the case for pixies until one carefully reads the rules) regardless of incentive to get away from the ground (ie, don't confuse "does not like to fly high" with "cannot fly high")
> 2) Can fly up higher but must return to within 5 feet every 6 seconds
> 3) If it is blown higher will suddenly dramatically fall




Anything that relies on a ground effect to 'fly', this would include your smaller and higher power 'hovercraft' (which actually work remarkably similar to the pixie), as well as any number of other systems like 'wing over ground', etc. Even rotary aircraft operate near the ground in a very similar way, with effects like ring vortex playing a part. 

As for all the sniping about 'the size doesn't matter' or 'rules brick' I'd suggest you look at similar efforts in other editions/games. Tiny creatures in 3.x have a whole slew of complex rules for instance. All the implementations I've seen for similar stuff in AD&D were also both complicated and strange if you tried to actually dope out how they fit with the rules. 

Size certainly does matter. You people are all so caught up in your flaming hatred of the 4e combat system that you can't even see the forest for the trees. Use your imagination. Outside of a fight the pixie can do a TON of cool stuff with its small size. Slip through cracks and small spaces, hide in all sorts of locations that a normal sized PC wouldn't be able to, etc etc etc. You've all blinded yourselves. This is an RPG, not a tactical skirmish game, or have you forgotten? I know I haven't.

In terms of it being 'overpowered', meh. Stop worrying about it so much. It is FAR from broken. Sure, the player might do various clever things and manage to leverage their tininess to some advantage. Big deal. The character isn't going to steal the show, and it will be fun to play, that's all that matters.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 8, 2011)

Shroomy said:


> They changed that rule and got rid of it.  All hover does now is prevent you from falling when you're stunned.



Thanks, I'll have to look that up again.

Can't XP you yet, though.


----------



## blalien (Oct 8, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> Please name a living creature that is limited in ANY of the following ways
> 1) Stays within 5 ft of the ground (what appears to be the case for pixies until one carefully reads the rules) regardless of incentive to get away from the ground (ie, don't confuse "does not like to fly high" with "cannot fly high")
> 2) Can fly up higher but must return to within 5 feet every 6 seconds
> 3) If it is blown higher will suddenly dramatically fall




All flying animals have an altitude limit.  Wings work by displacing the air around them, sort of similar to swimming.  In order to fly, you must be able to displace an amount of air equal to your weight.  The farther you get from the surface of the earth, the lower the air pressure gets.  When you reach a certain altitude, there won't be enough air for you to displace, and you won't be able to fly any higher.  The altitude you can reach depends on your size, wing span, and wing strength.  Most airplanes and other flying objects have an altitude limit for the same reason, unless they use rocket fuel.

There are no animals that fit your conditions, because there are no animals that have a body similar to a pixie, specifically a mammalian body with insectoid wings.  Butterflies have a tiny, hollow, aerodynamic body which allows them to fly up to a height of a few hundred feet.  The only flying mammals are bats, and they have expansive wings like birds.  You could argue that a pixie could not exist in real life, and then I would just respond with, "magic pixie dust."

Considering a pixie's size and relative wing span, it's not unreasonable to assume that a pixie can only fly when there is high air pressure, near the surface of the earth.  To fly higher, the pixie must beat its wings harder, and it can only keep that up for a few seconds.  The D&D rules are an abstraction and therefore won't be completely realistic, but the altitude rules are not completely out there.


----------



## pauljathome (Oct 8, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Anything that relies on a ground effect to 'fly', this would include your smaller and higher power 'hovercraft' (which actually work remarkably similar to the pixie), as well as any number of other systems like 'wing over ground', etc..




I'll take that as an admission that you can NOT come up with a living creature with these restrictions.

And the ground effect of hovercraft doesn't let one go up 60 ft in the air every 6 seconds.

You can like pixes or not like them. That doesn't change the fact that they don't resemble any living creature in their flying ability.

I also can't think of any (non gaming) fictional creature that they resemble either but there is a lot of fiction out there that I haven't read and so might well be missing something there.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 8, 2011)

Obryn said:
			
		

> Pixies are tiny because when someone wants to play a pixie, they want to play a super-small (aka Tiny) character. Making them 4' tall would have, frankly, missed the whole point.




Well, it depends upon the person. Some people want to play a pixie because it can fly, thus making the 1-square altitude limit missing the point. Some people play a pixie because they can turn invisible, making the whole "no invisibility as a racial power at level 1" thing missing the point. Some people play a pixie because they want to be a fey trickster, and those people don't even need a pixie now because they have re-fluffed halflings, gnomes, and eladrin. 

I don't think we can say "Everyone who plays X plays it for reason Y!" There's a lot of things that, say, Dragonborn have going for them. It's not just one thing. Pixies are (I imagine) the same way.



			
				blalien said:
			
		

> Considering a pixie's size and relative wing span, it's not unreasonable to assume that a pixie can only fly when there is high air pressure, near the surface of the earth.




Insects, arachnids, hummingbirds, and other itty bitty critters routinely make journeys of hundreds of kilometers, sometimes thousands of feet above sea level. And they're not made of faerie magic. "Logic" doesn't exactly apply. It's a game-rule reason. The reason is, effectively, "It was too hard for us to design a game wherein flying characters  did not have some inherent mechanical advantage over non-flying characters, but we felt the need to make a pixie anyway and try to find a middle ground."

If that reason doesn't jive for you, or you can't MAKE it jive for you, the pixie just ain't gonna be acceptable to you. Which is fine, it's not like this specific race has to have universal appeal. It's a PIXIE. It's already inherently not gonna appeal to lots of insecure 13 year old boys.  

FWIW, there's plenty of game systems wherein size and flying don't so deeply affect balance, D&D4e just ain't one of 'em.


----------



## pauljathome (Oct 8, 2011)

blalien said:


> All flying animals have an altitude limit.  Wings work by displacing the air around them, sort of similar to swimming.  In order to fly, you must be able to displace an amount of air equal to your weight. The farther you get from the surface of the earth, the lower the air pressure gets.




You might want to note here that the limitation is 5 feet above ground and NOT 5 feet above sea level.



> There are no animals that fit your conditions




That is precisely my point. Another poster said that there ARE, in fact, many animals with these limitations.

You can definitely make either the argument "Its magic. Deal"
or the argument  "Its for game balance. Deal"

I'll concede to those arguments (well, with my already expressed caveats that such is not to my taste and, IMO, misses a great deal of the POINT of a pixie). 

But don't try and claim that its realistic unless you can back it up with actual facts.


----------



## JPL (Oct 8, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> I'll take that as an admission that you can NOT come up with a living creature with these restrictions.
> 
> . . . .
> 
> You can like pixes or not like them. That doesn't change the fact that they don't resemble any living creature in their flying ability.




Between that and their ability to shrink objects, I am beginning to suspect these pixies are unrealistic.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 8, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> You can definitely make either the argument "Its magic. Deal"
> or the argument  "Its for game balance. Deal"



Thank you.

I agree, using physics to justify the pixie's altitude limit is like justifying lightning bolt with "well, I can shock my DM if I rub my feet on the carpet!" No thanks, I'll stick with the universal explanation. ("It's magic, get over it.")

Scratch that, I'm in the mood for a joke character. Tinker Fey is a mage bent on lifting the curse of acrophobia that plagues her people. (And even _that's_ more consistent than the physics explanation.)


----------



## Siberys (Oct 8, 2011)

I'll take a shot at a reasonable explanation for the altitude limit;

The pixie's wings are not what keeps it aloft - they are actually used mostly for stability in flight, much how a human on a tightrope might hold out their arms, or how boats often have fin keels.  The real thing keeping it aloft is it's pixie dust, and that can only lift the pixie so high without giving out (it's magic!). Pixie dust, when used on another, is an encounter power because the pixie can only syphon of so much of it's magic at a time before it would fall out of the sky.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Oct 9, 2011)

Pixies may be like Shades and Vyrloka and receive optional racial utility powers. If so, I'm guessing the level 10 or level 16 utility option is at-will, move action flight with no altitude restriction and with flavor text like "Your growing power has offered true mastery over flight."


----------



## Matt James (Oct 9, 2011)

You can expect more support for the Pixie via DDI. My hints may or may not be subtle, I leave that up to you fine folks. Now, where are my pants?


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 9, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> I'll take that as an admission that you can NOT come up with a living creature with these restrictions.




I cannot find any pixies. They are endangered.

As soon you get me a pixie, I will show you exactly how it works.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 9, 2011)

Matt James said:


> You can expect more support for the Pixie via DDI. My hints may or may not be subtle, I leave that up to you fine folks. Now, where are my pants?



I blame Bwalsch, the pants thief!


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 9, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> There are living creatures and machines in the REAL WORLD with altitude limits. It's not un_realistic_ in the slightest.





Incenjucar said:


> I cannot find any pixies. They are endangered.
> 
> As soon you get me a pixie, I will show you exactly how it works.



First you try to use real world to justify pixies, and then you cry foul when you can't back up your claims. Good show, my man, good show!

No matter how far you bend physics backward, it won't justify pixies. And that's the point; they're magical.

So recognize the absurdity; accept the absurdity; love the absurdity! Or just ban the buggers.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 9, 2011)

The thing is that pixies, if one must explain how they work, work like hovercrafts and not anything biological. But all those other features do exist in living creatures as well. The whole argument is absurd, and just people trying to complain their way into unlimited flight.


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 9, 2011)

Mengu said:


> Pixie vampire named Mosquiote? It has to be done.




Pixie Druid named "Fawn Quixote": always wild-shapes into an infantile deer; and moves by "stotting," as much as any other way. 

Has "Storm Spike" as its lone, non-Beast Form At-Will attack, because it's going to grow up to become a "spike" deer (if it lives so long).


----------



## pauljathome (Oct 9, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> The thing is that pixies, if one must explain how they work, work like hovercrafts.




I admit that I'm not all that knowledgeable about hovercraft, so perhaps you'd point out the example of one that can go 60 feet up into the air, can cross 50 ft wide chasms regardless of their depth while having the limitation that it has to descend down to 5 ft every few seconds.



Incenjucar said:


> But all those other features do exist in living creatures as well. .




If you're still maintaining that there are biological creatures that are limited in any way approximating pixies please give us an example. A single one will suffice. You give me one single example and I'll acknowledge that I'm wrong.



Incenjucar said:


> The whole argument is absurd, and just people trying to complain their way into unlimited flight.




For the record, I'm the one who is claiming that limited flight is quite powerful, at least when it is NOT balanced against some limitations. I most certainly do not want unlimited flight unless, of course, it is balanced with some quite significant limitations.

And, for the record, I believe that something approximating that kind of balanced approach is actually possible. Earthdawn came reasonably close (windlings were not the most unbalanced part of the game ), Pathfinder probably comes close, D&D 3.0 pixies probably came close, etc.


----------



## keterys (Oct 9, 2011)

The game uses altitude limits as a simplified mechanic for handling flight of some creatures. If you don't like that - in pixies or anything else that uses it - feel free to use something else.

It doesn't work that badly in play. Basically, the pixie knows it can try and "sprint" fly to a goal, then kinda huffs and puffs when it gets there and moves on, or it flies up and grabs onto something to hang onto for a bit.

Much like the complaints about Fey Step, it will offend some people. It will imply some things about the game setting. And most folks will just roll some dice and move on.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Oct 9, 2011)

In fairness, Incenjucar did not say "There are real world animals with the same exact limitations as pixies." He said, "There are living creatures and machines in the REAL WORLD with altitude limits."

AbdulAlHezred further explained the scientific basis for this. He was also kind enough to point out that there is no real world approximation for a pixie. Clearly your demand for a real world approximate is unreasonable.

You were provided with a completely reasonable explanation for the limitiation. And, of course, magic.


----------



## Sigdel (Oct 9, 2011)

In my experience, flying characters are isolated targets. My wife, who played a 3.5 cleric that could fly at will, found this out. When in combat she took to the air and then took a beating. Out of combat it was not all that big of a advantage.


----------



## Matt James (Oct 9, 2011)

You know what balances out the Pixie for me? It's a pixie. Cool race, but I still like my Human Wizard for long-haul campaigns. Always have--regardless of edition.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 9, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> This is true, but it also raises some other points.
> 
> If the pixie character up on a 60' ledge gets dropped (monsters DO have ranged attacks, remember?), how is the party healer going to even get to them?



Climb, I suppose.  But, while /some/ monsters do have ranged attacks, not all, or even all that many do.  

A key difference between a monster ability and a PC ability is that the PC ability will be there in every single encounter.  Relatively low-level monsters can fly, because some PCs'll have ranged attacks, and there won't be flying monsters in every encounter.  PCs don't get to fly at low level - don't get to hover out of range even at Paragon - because a flying PC turns /every/ encounter into a 3D flying encounter, and that's a complication DMs don't need...


----------



## Dice4Hire (Oct 9, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> - because a flying PC turns /every/ encounter into a 3D flying encounter, and that's a complication DMs don't need...




Yes, especially when you get one with no drawbacks whatsoever. 

This is just plain unbalanced. 

But at least pixies are the perfect size for a banhammer. Half-ogres in 3.5 were a bit big to go after with a banhammer.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 9, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I agree, using physics to justify the pixie's altitude limit is like justifying lightning bolt with "well, I can shock my DM if I rub my feet on the carpet!"



The material component for an AD&D Lightning Bolt was cat fur and a glass or amber rod - which, as junior-high physics taught us, can be used to generate static electricity.  

So, yeah, D&D has a history of engaing in just that sort of silliness.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 9, 2011)

Pixies are certainly unbalanced at early levels unless you specifically alter or design challenges with them in mind. A pixie thrust into a generic early heroic adventure module will almost certainly cause issues with the design. However, as designed, it's more or less as good as the concept CAN be, while not simply being excluded from possibilities entirely.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 9, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> as designed, it's more or less as good as the concept CAN be, while not simply being excluded from possibilities entirely.



Nod.  One thing that's changed since the 'new direction' is that concept is being put before balance, again.

Take the PH1, for instance.  IN 3e, if you had a long pointy longspear and someone charged up to you, you got an AoO.  But, 4e put balance before concept, so longspears didn't get threatening reach - threatening reach would make anyone with a longspear too much like a controller, and that wouldn't've been balanced.  If the longspear were a brand new post-Essentials weapon, it might give theatening reach, which, really, isn't any more encounter-changing than the pixie's flight.  :shrug:


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 9, 2011)

I just wanted to come in to say, that the way the pixie was done is not bad at all.
I can accept the altitude limit, as it is how pixie flight is usually depicted in films (they don´t fly like superman), although altitude limit 2 would not have been unbalancing or so...
I also can accept the range, as you could easily imagine the pixie flying fast into the oponents space and back... you could as well have given them an at will ability that allows them to shift into the oponents space attack and shift back... but that would have brought some unwantd interactions...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 9, 2011)

Grabuto138 said:
			
		

> AbdulAlHezred further explained the scientific basis for this. He was also kind enough to point out that there is no real world approximation for a pixie. Clearly your demand for a real world approximate is unreasonable.
> 
> You were provided with a completely reasonable explanation for the limitiation. And, of course, magic.




Well, yeah, that's kind of the guy's point. 

He's all, "It doesn't make any logical sense!", and everyone else is all, "IT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE, LOOK AT REAL LIFE!", and he's all, "Okay, where does it happen in real life?", and everyone else is all, "LOL U WANT REALISM IN PIXIES." 

And I do this:






It's like watching a mentally handicapped ettin debate which part of the halfling to eat first. "I'm gonna take the left flank."; "NO! THAT IS THE BEST PART!"; "Oh, okay you can have it."; "DON'T GIVE THAT TO ME IT IS THE WORST PART!"



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> because a flying PC turns /every/ encounter into a 3D flying encounter, and that's a complication DMs don't need






			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> However, as designed, it's more or less as good as the concept CAN be, while not simply being excluded from possibilities entirely.






			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> Nod. One thing that's changed since the 'new direction' is that concept is being put before balance, again.




When 5e comes, as it sooner or later inevitably will, I hope one of the things they seriously get right is how to do combat without having to do the detailed simulation of a grid. 

[sblock=RANT MODE ON]All of these problems (and the problems with a longspear!) come from the predilection of the game to want to be HIGHLY REALISTIC about fantasy combat with wizards and dragons, so much so that it cares about what 5' box you occupy and how long your weapon is and how you cover distance.

In a more cinematic combat system, none of this is an issue. Forex, in FFZ, a flying creature has a row placement just like any other: front or back. Any creature can hit them with a melee attack, regardless of what row they are in. If they're in the "back row," they just take less damage from melee attacks (and deal less damage with their own). It's described as the combat being abstract, not about exact placement or space: a fighter who whacks our flying back row pixie with a sword is described as taking a flying leap into the air, throwing his sword at the bugger, and catching it when it comes down, for instance. Or waiting until it comes within range (since everyone is constantly moving), then taking a swing at it. Yeah, that's not necessarily realistic, but it is very _cinematic_! It was built with the idea of extremely flexible character types in mind: you could be a sword-wielding knight, or a sentient talking dog, or a robot stuffed animal from a theme park, or...

FFZ locates the strategy of combat in "role selection" (do I heal this round? Defend? Or go all out? Or incapacitate the enemy?) in initiative tricks (how many attacks do I want now? What if I need to heal later?), and in rock-paper-scissors weaknesses (Ranged attacker vs. flying critter! Mage vs. physically-resistant critter! Tank vs. Brute! Skirmisher vs. Skirmisher!) so it's a different sort of strategy, but it's still pretty strategic.

D&D really has a legacy with the minis grid, and I know a lot of people heart it, and it should be preserved in some fashion, but so many compromises need to be made (as is evidenced with the Pixie) that to me, from the outside looking in, it hardly seems worth it for my games. I'd like to be able to play D&D without worrying about these fiddly bits of simulationist combat blah blah blah, because I would like a game where I could play a pixie with a longspear, or talking psionic housecat, and not have to worry that my character concept breaks the thing.
[/sblock]


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 9, 2011)

Grabuto138 said:


> In fairness, Incenjucar did not say "There are real world animals with the same exact limitations as pixies." He said, "There are living creatures and machines in the REAL WORLD with altitude limits."
> 
> AbdulAlHezred further explained the scientific basis for this. He was also kind enough to point out that there is no real world approximation for a pixie. Clearly your demand for a real world approximate is unreasonable. You were provided with a completely reasonable explanation for the limitiation. And, of course, magic.



In fairness, Incenjucar is shifting goal posts and Abdul's explanation is misleading pseudo-science. So just in case anyone else is taking this 'physics' explanation seriously, allow me to set the record straight:

Real things have altitude limits because as altitude increases, air density decreases. Low air density makes it difficult for creatures to breathe, and makes flyers expend more energy to stay aloft. Eventually, one problem and/or the other creates a creature's altitude limit.

And here's the important part, which Abdul neglected to mention: it takes _hundreds_, if not thousands of feat for air density to measurably decrease. The difference in air density between ground level and 5 feet up is nonexistent for all intents and purposes; even by the most anal retentive scientific standards. That's why even the clumsiest barely-flyers can get _at least_ several dozen feet high.

If anyone doesn't believe me, you can prove it to yourself with a simple balloon experiment. Here's the deal: when you blow up a balloon, its air density equals the air density at that level. So if you blow one up and then bring it to a higher altitude, it should get bigger. When it gets about 10% bigger, air density _begins_ to become a problem for flyers.

So blow up a balloon at ground level; not to the point of bursting, but enough to make the plastic taut. Now measure the balloon's diameter. Then take it up a five foot ladder, and measure it again. Scratch that; take it up the highest ladder you can find, then measure it.

If you can even measure the difference in diameter, I'll be surprised.


----------



## pauljathome (Oct 9, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Pixies are certainly unbalanced at early levels unless you specifically alter or design challenges with them in mind. A pixie thrust into a generic early heroic adventure module will almost certainly cause issues with the design. However, as designed, it's more or less as good as the concept CAN be, while not simply being excluded from possibilities entirely.




I disagree that this is good as is possible.

It would be improved with some limitiations to the flight.

For example, 
"A character who hits the pixie while it is flying can push it 3 squares in any direction, even vertically"

or

"A pixie finds flight quite tiring. It cannot fly as a double move action and, after a round spent partly or fully in the air, it must remain on the ground for the next round"


----------



## pauljathome (Oct 9, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> it takes _hundreds_, if not thousands of feat for air density to measurably decrease.




I couldn't give you experience, so I'm replying .

The other issue is that the density of air is primarily (not completely) determined by the height above sea level and NOT the height above the ground.

So a pixie not being able to fly tens of feet into the air due to air pressure would not be able to fly at all when up a hill or even a tree (except for maybe a short "hop")

And couldn't fly in a "low pressure" area either.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Oct 9, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Climb, I suppose.  But, while /some/ monsters do have ranged attacks, not all, or even all that many do.
> 
> A key difference between a monster ability and a PC ability is that the PC ability will be there in every single encounter.  Relatively low-level monsters can fly, because some PCs'll have ranged attacks, and there won't be flying monsters in every encounter.  PCs don't get to fly at low level - don't get to hover out of range even at Paragon - because a flying PC turns /every/ encounter into a 3D flying encounter, and that's a complication DMs don't need...



Yes, and here's the thing - that complication is just as bad when monsters don't have ranged attacks and one of your PCs does, especially long-ranged ones - like Rangers with Longbows and a penchant for stealthing *every round*.

I've learned from this to *always* use monsters with ranged attacks, and if they don't have one, to give them one (usually equal to their melee basic). Still, that doesn't help that much when your 3rd level PC is stealthing at ~25 or so every round and most monsters at that level don't have a perception high enough to reliably hit it.

I guess I need to start using more bursts and blasts.

Pixie flight seems not so bad. YMMV of course.


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 9, 2011)

Siberys said:


> I'll take a shot at a reasonable explanation for the altitude limit;
> 
> The pixie's wings are not what keeps it aloft - they are actually used mostly for stability in flight, much how a human on a tightrope might hold out their arms, or how boats often have fin keels.  The real thing keeping it aloft is its pixie dust, and that can only lift the pixie so high without giving out (it's magic!). Pixie dust, when used on another, is an encounter power because the pixie can only syphon of so much of it's magic at a time before it would fall out of the sky.




I like that (i.e. _pixie flight's being due to pixie dust_, not to air pressure) because it directly addresses the issue of the altitude limit: the flight is effected by the pixie dust instead of by the air pressure, so we can view a pixie's flight ability as being a result of magical rejection of mundanity as embodied by the ground. (The strength of the rejection effect might be proportional to the inverse square of distance from the ground, but that's an insignificant detail.) 

This way, a pixie can exceed the altitude limit briefly; but that is a simple matter of momentum, which is always used up in one turn.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 9, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> I disagree that this is good as is possible.
> 
> It would be improved with some limitiations to the flight.
> 
> ...




This would go under the "fiddly and obnoxious highly-specialized rules" column. This is why I say "good" and not "balanced." Altitude limit already exists in the game, and doesn't require a lot of memorization or checking up on rules. To even attempt to balance at-will flight would take extremely obnoxious rules that would become really silly as soon as flight-granting magic items became available.

--

As for "goal posts" I have pointed out that animals have altitude limits, and hovercrafts work more or less the way a pixie does, aside from using fans instead of magic. Someone wanted me to find a real animal that had the _exact same flight limitations_ as the pixie IN THE GAME, which is simply an absurd request - you can't find HUMANS who work the same way in real life in regards to movement as humans in the game.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Oct 9, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> I'll take that as an admission that you can NOT come up with a living creature with these restrictions.
> 
> And the ground effect of hovercraft doesn't let one go up 60 ft in the air every 6 seconds.




There are no exact hard and fast rules like D&D uses that will describe what a flying creature can and cannot do. Under the right conditions insects can reach altitudes of 10's of thousands of feet. OTOH they rarely fly far above the ground. 

As for hovercraft, one might wish to do some research on that, but it is pretty irrelevant to pixies. I think you'll find preconceived notions of what ground effect craft can do and how they work is largely not accurate however.



> You can like pixes or not like them. That doesn't change the fact that they don't resemble any living creature in their flying ability.
> 
> I also can't think of any (non gaming) fictional creature that they resemble either but there is a lot of fiction out there that I haven't read and so might well be missing something there.




I agree entirely, pixies don't resemble any real flying creature. If real flying creatures were our model they would have an altitude limit of 0 because nothing built like that could fly at all, or probably even exist period.

I don't know about fiction. I don't recall any particular fiction where the ability of pixies to fly high up in the sky was particularly defined. So I don't see it as a big problem. The standard descriptions of pixies don't seem to particularly deal a lot with the limitations of their flight, but more just depict them as being able to buzz around like Tinker Bell. Thus I don't see any big reason to go out of my way to dislike the provided implementation. It is a mixture of practical rules balance and interesting race concept. It seems like it will work reasonably well in the game, so what's to complain about? 

Basically it just seems to me like people go into looking at any new 4e material with a chip on their shoulders looking for whatever reason to complain about it instead of looking at what the material lets you do in the game. Problems are what you make of them largely, unless they're really serious balance issues, which I don't see any of here.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 9, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:
			
		

> Basically it just seems to me like people go into looking at any new 4e material with a chip on their shoulders looking for whatever reason to complain about it instead of looking at what the material lets you do in the game.




I don't think a chip on the shoulder is the reason.

I think the reason has more to do with the fact that what the material lets you do in the game doesn't satisfy the needs of some people. It's a legit complaint, even if there's no feasable way that 4e, as designed, could actually meet some of these needs. It's not just irrational anger, though, it's an actual criticism. And, of course, it just isn't equally important to everybody.

On a slightly different track, it strikes me that the pixie's equipment problems are part of what is solved by Monte Cook's proposed "magic items are not part of a character's power" concept. The reason a pixie has to shrink items is so that it can use found stuff. If found stuff doesn't NEED to be used, it's not a problem if the pixie can't use 90% of it. Okay, so it wears a magic ring as a belt, and gains the power therein, and no one cares, or it can't wield the magic longsword, and no one cares, because magic items don't HAVE to be used. 

Combine cinematic combat with no necessary magic items at a game-system level, and suddenly a tiny flying creature doesn't operate in a dramatically different way from a Frost Giant character, leaving pixies as valid a racial choice as anything else, complete with unlimited pixie flying and no need to kludge items to fit.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 9, 2011)

Magic items are just part of the issue. Mundane items are just as difficult for a pixie to find. Tiny longswords really aren't that common in most weapon shops outside of the feywild.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 9, 2011)

> Mundane items are just as difficult for a pixie to find. Tiny longswords really aren't that common in most weapon shops outside of the feywild.




A character doesn't have to rely on finding weapons, though. Your weapon is practically never destroyed, so if you don't have to "upgrade," you can reliably keep the tiny longsword you had at character creation.

Even if the game were to occasionally destroy weapons (via rust monsters or something), paying a skilled blacksmith to make you a Tiny longsword special, or picking up a tailor's needle and wielding it like a tiny longsword, seems like a "Fun Failure" part of the game, highlighting how the pixie can't just pick up any ol' orc sword. I'd imagine a game that destroyed weapons would look pretty different from 4e as it stands, though (such as by providing a thick proficiency base for every character, without the loss of skill that comes in 4e if one were to loose their weapon).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Oct 9, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think a chip on the shoulder is the reason.
> 
> I think the reason has more to do with the fact that what the material lets you do in the game doesn't satisfy the needs of some people. It's a legit complaint, even if there's no feasable way that 4e, as designed, could actually meet some of these needs. It's not just irrational anger, though, it's an actual criticism. And, of course, it just isn't equally important to everybody.




Eh, except I see the same people voicing complaints again and again about things. Seems more like an "I'm not going to accept anything from this system that isn't perfect for me, everything else is bad design" bug. 



> On a slightly different track, it strikes me that the pixie's equipment problems are part of what is solved by Monte Cook's proposed "magic items are not part of a character's power" concept. The reason a pixie has to shrink items is so that it can use found stuff. If found stuff doesn't NEED to be used, it's not a problem if the pixie can't use 90% of it. Okay, so it wears a magic ring as a belt, and gains the power therein, and no one cares, or it can't wield the magic longsword, and no one cares, because magic items don't HAVE to be used.
> 
> Combine cinematic combat with no necessary magic items at a game-system level, and suddenly a tiny flying creature doesn't operate in a dramatically different way from a Frost Giant character, leaving pixies as valid a racial choice as anything else, complete with unlimited pixie flying and no need to kludge items to fit.




Well, I'm not entirely sure I follow you. I see what you mean about gear shrinking, but of course even if a pixie would work with no magic gear I imagine the player would find that less than totally satisfactory. 

As for the flying thing, or a huge giant, etc. The issues with that transcend any kind of edition or whatever. Sure, if everyone can pretty much fly anytime they feel like or grow to be 42' tall, then it is largely irrelevant, but in a game where there are limits on what PCs can do anyone that can avoid one of those limits raises some level of issue, even if it is fairly trivial. Flying PCs gain certain advantages for instance. I'm not one to think those advantages are huge, but they exist. 

Now, maybe there could in theory be some sort of system where you can balance and trade off inherent racial/class/whatever abilities vs magic items. Boons are a bit like that, though they'd have to be allocated differently to make a way to start characters off with something like flight. Still, I could see how a system for that might be designed. I guess it would probably not be THAT different from something like the Hero system where you can build up most any kind of effect with a point buy. Probably D&D wouldn't quite go that route, but at least it is somewhat possible.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 9, 2011)

It occurs to me that an Immovable Shaft is going to be a useful item for a ranged-specialist pixie to carry. He could fly up six squares, activate it, and just perch there. At Tiny size, he'd probably not even need Balance checks to stand on it.

When not in combat, repeated uses would allow him to eventually reach any height he liked.


----------



## keterys (Oct 9, 2011)

Yep - non-flying PCs can do some similar tricks with two immovable shafts, or one and a temporary flight or jump power (available around that level range).

Immovable shafts are pretty fun


----------



## Matt James (Oct 9, 2011)

I'd hate to DM for some of you. Back in '08 I had a good friend get into  a heated argument with me over not being able to reach the 3rd square  vertically because his character was 6'8". When people can start using  arcane reagents to cast spells, or _run_ in full plate, I'll start entertaining these arguments in the game


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 9, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:
			
		

> Eh, except I see the same people voicing complaints again and again about things. Seems more like an "I'm not going to accept anything from this system that isn't perfect for me, everything else is bad design" bug.




The Internet is a horrible, horrible way to judge someone's intentions. You also can't debate people on their feelings. If people have a lot of problems, perhaps they just legitimately have a lot of problems. The options aren't limited to "Accept It or You've Got A Chip On Your Shoulder." There's a lot of room for people to talk about what they want out of a game, and how a given element doesn't meet that. 



> even if a pixie would work with no magic gear I imagine the player would find that less than totally satisfactory.




If every character worked without any magic gear, a pixie wouldn't be required to re-size their own items, since a pixie not being able to use an item they found wouldn't be a problem. 



> but in a game where there are limits on what PCs can do anyone that can avoid one of those limits raises some level of issue, even if it is fairly trivial. Flying PCs gain certain advantages for instance.




There can be limits on what a PC can do without "You cannot fly" being one of those limits. A game based on fantasy seems to me to inevitably have a character who can fly (pixie, or a bird-person, or a fighter mounted on a pegasus), so "You cannot fly", IMO, shouldn't be one of the things that defines what characters can do. The game should take flight into account from the get-go. Then you don't have to kludge like this. 



> Now, maybe there could in theory be some sort of system where you can balance and trade off inherent racial/class/whatever abilities vs magic items.




I think all Monte was talking about was that you assumed magic items were a _reward_, and not an _assumption_, so a party without magic items was doing fine, and a party who DID get magic items would be a little exceptional, in certain circumstances, maybe.

And then you balanced monsters for a party without magic items. 

4e is probably 90% of the way there already (Dark Sun!), so it's not like it would be that big of a change from the way the game works now.

I was just pointing out that a pixie character (or any oddly sized or shaped character) benefits from such a system, because you don't have to design your race to use items not made for them. They don't need to use magic items (no one does). Every once in a while there might be an item they can use, too, but even if there never is, it's not a game-breaker.



			
				keterys said:
			
		

> Immovable shafts are pretty fun




That's what your wife keeps telling me.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 9, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I'd hate to DM for some of you. Back in '08 I had a good friend get into  a heated argument with me over not being able to reach the 3rd square  vertically because his character was 6'8". When people can start using  arcane reagents to cast spells, or _run_ in full plate, I'll start entertaining these arguments in the game




I made sure to keep players like this out of my campaign by having the very first scene involve vampire mermaids named after characters from Aquaman comics and Disney's The Little Mermaid. 

--

Shrink is, frankly, too fun a power to get rid of. If Pixies were size Small I'd still love for SOME race to have Shrink because OMG.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 9, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> I made sure to keep players like this out of my campaign by having the very first scene involve vampire mermaids named after characters from Aquaman comics and Disney's The Little Mermaid.




As filters go, that one may be somewhat broad.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 9, 2011)

2 Questions....

Even though a tiny item becomes an improvised weapon for non-tiny creatures, it would still retain any magical enchantments it had, right?  

Likewise, would an improvised weapon retain it's other qualities such as brutal?  I see no specific rule (aside from becoming an improvised weapon and changing the damage dice done) which would change the other features of the weapon; in fact, the wording seems to suggest that all other features stay the same.


Why I'm asking...

You could shrink a vorpal blade so that it becomes an improvised weapon.  Rolling max damage on 1d4 is fairly easy to do; you could increase your odds even more by wearing items which don't allow you to roll 1s for damage.  Brutal 2 on improvised weapon means you can only roll 3s or 4s; you have a 50/50 chance of rolling max damage and rolling again.


----------



## keterys (Oct 9, 2011)

Eh, it'd be possible to get another 3 or so damage per W that way... but you'd miss more, lose expertise, focus, etc. Not worth it.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 9, 2011)

keterys said:


> Eh, it'd be possible to get another 3 or so damage per W that way... but you'd miss more, lose expertise, focus, etc. Not worth it.





I don't think there's anything which precludes someone from choosing "improvised weapons" for the weapon group they want to focus on with Weapon Focus and Expertise.  Also, aren't there classes (I'm thinking of the brawling fighter, but my memory is fuzzy) which get bonuses with improvised weapons?

You could go Kensei for another bump to your hit chances.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 9, 2011)

An improvised weapon is a specific kind of weapon. Properties such as brutal wouldn't carry over because those properties are weapon properties.

It's like trying to use a halberd handle to smack someone upside the head and expecting it to be treated as a heavy blade.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 9, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> An improvised weapon is a specific kind of weapon. Properties such as brutal wouldn't carry over because those properties are weapon properties.
> 
> It's like trying to use a halberd handle to smack someone upside the head and expecting it to be treated as a heavy blade.





...or kind of like using a double weapon and smacking someone with an axe head and expecting it to be treated as a spear (which it is.)

I can buy something like Brutal not carrying over (maybe.)  I can see the reasoning as to why it wouldn't; however -to my knowledge- there's nothing which prevents a weapon in the Improvised Weapon Group from having the brutal property.  Still, I lean toward Brutal probably not carrying over.

However, the change in size and change to being improvised would -as best I can tell- not have any effect on the magical enchantment which is already on the item.


----------



## pauljathome (Oct 9, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Basically it just seems to me like people go into looking at any new 4e material with a chip on their shoulders looking for whatever reason to complain about it instead of looking at what the material lets you do in the game. Problems are what you make of them largely, unless they're really serious balance issues, which I don't see any of here.




I'll reply to this and then shut up.

I've stated that the current implementation of pixies aren't really to my taste, and given reasons why.  I've also pointed out why I think many of the restrictions are, in fact, unnecessary and at least partly fail to address the issue that they are trying to address (game balance).

I've also taken exception to claims that the flight limitations on pixies are the tiniest bit realistic. My objection here is ONLY to the claim that 
the limitations are realistic. Clearly the limitation is there ONLY because of game balance and equally clearly the only in world justification for the limitation is either "Its magic" or "Its for game balance".

The only chip on my shoulder is with respect to people trying to justify something as "realistic" when it isn't. And using some exceedingly bad logic and science to justify that position. If you like the pixie as it is, great. But 
that does NOT make it "realistic".  Nor does it being "unrealistic" make it bad.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 10, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> ...or kind of like using a double weapon and smacking someone with an axe head and expecting it to be treated as a spear (which it is.)
> 
> I can buy something like Brutal not carrying over (maybe.)  I can see the reasoning as to why it wouldn't; however -to my knowledge- there's nothing which prevents a weapon in the Improvised Weapon Group from having the brutal property.  Still, I lean toward Brutal probably not carrying over.
> 
> However, the change in size and change to being improvised would -as best I can tell- not have any effect on the magical enchantment which is already on the item.




Improvised weapons have very specific statistics. You follow those statistics and no others.

I'm not sure, but I think that you only get to use magic item properties when using an item in a normal fashion.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 10, 2011)

tuxgeo said:


> I like that (i.e. _pixie flight's being due to pixie dust_, not to air pressure) because it directly addresses the issue of the altitude limit: the flight is effected by the pixie dust instead of by the air pressure, so we can view a pixie's flight ability as being a result of magical rejection of mundanity as embodied by the ground. (The strength of the rejection effect might be proportional to the inverse square of distance from the ground, but that's an insignificant detail.)
> 
> This way, a pixie can exceed the altitude limit briefly; but that is a simple matter of momentum, which is always used up in one turn.



See, I'd have the pixie's flight be based off the magic of the land (ley lines), so they can fly pretty well within a given distance, but if they try to fly higher, their magic goes poof and the come down crashing. Kinda like a maglev train.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 10, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, it depends upon the person. Some people want to play a pixie because it can fly, thus making the 1-square altitude limit missing the point. Some people play a pixie because they can turn invisible, making the whole "no invisibility as a racial power at level 1" thing missing the point. Some people play a pixie because they want to be a fey trickster, and those people don't even need a pixie now because they have re-fluffed halflings, gnomes, and eladrin.
> 
> I don't think we can say "Everyone who plays X plays it for reason Y!" There's a lot of things that, say, Dragonborn have going for them. It's not just one thing. Pixies are (I imagine) the same way.



Yes, people have different priorities and different reasons for picking a race, class, whatever.  But that's a separate issue.  It'd be like having a Wizard who can't cast spells, or a Knight who can't use a shield.  Or a halfling who's not small, a dwarf who's not hardy, etc.

I'd say that - if you're thinking Pixie - the first things that should come to mind are (1) tiny, and (2) flying.  Those are pretty much the core; everything else is nice, but not essential.  While I personally don't want either of those things in a PC, I think WotC made some decent workarounds to allow both of them.

-O


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 10, 2011)

So I've been thinking about this Shrink power...

Pixies probably have a high metabolism, and probably enjoy eating lots of fruits. If my Tinker were to get into a bushel of apples, she could shrink them down to bite size and polish off that bushel in no time. And no problems with digestion, seeing as how all those applies are on her person once eaten. (Well, 'in her person' is more apt.) But about eight hours later, when those apples have exited her posterior end, well, that's a lot of...

Ewww 



Johnny3D3D said:


> You could shrink a vorpal blade so that it becomes an improvised weapon.  Rolling max damage on 1d4 is fairly easy to do; you could increase your odds even more by wearing items which don't allow you to roll 1s for damage.  Brutal 2 on improvised weapon means you can only roll 3s or 4s; you have a 50/50 chance of rolling max damage and rolling again.



Yes, I believe that would work. Though you'd be doing less damage with that Tiny weapon than in its normal size, so you wouldn't be scoring any power player points. It would, however, qualify you for Nation's Most Annoying Die Roller. I'll vote for you!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 10, 2011)

Obryn said:
			
		

> Yes, people have different priorities and different reasons for picking a race, class, whatever. But that's a separate issue. It'd be like having a Wizard who can't cast spells, or a Knight who can't use a shield. Or a halfling who's not small, a dwarf who's not hardy, etc.




There's a pretty big difference between playing "against type" and having different expectations. I'm only really talking about the latter.



> I'd say that - if you're thinking Pixie - the first things that should come to mind are (1) tiny, and (2) flying. Those are pretty much the core; everything else is nice, but not essential. While I personally don't want either of those things in a PC, I think WotC made some decent workarounds to allow both of them.




You'd say that. Others would say other things. I'm just mentioning that we shouldn't really tell other people why they might want to play a pixie. The way WotC implemented Tiny and Flying and the other features might not be good enough for people to play the pixies they want to play. It's OK if the pixie isn't perfect for everyone.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 10, 2011)

The disappearing fey is more or less already covered with the gnome, so it's a useful gap to go for.


----------



## Unwise (Oct 10, 2011)

I'm happy to see the Pixies in game and this looks like an OK representation to me. I think a lot will depend on the feats available and what each person thinks a fairie 'must' be able to do. 

...I wrote more, but it failed the "If someone else wrote this would I think they were a douchebag" test...

Now comes the hardest part of deciding what class best suits a Nac Mac Feegle.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 10, 2011)

Unwise said:


> Now comes the hardest part of deciding what class best suits a Nac Mac Feegle.



Barbarian?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 10, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> I've also pointed out why I think many of the restrictions are, in fact, unnecessary and at least partly fail to address the issue that they are trying to address (game balance).
> ...Clearly the limitation is there ONLY because of game balance and equally clearly the only in world justification for the limitation is either "Its magic" or "Its for game balance".



I can agree, to an extent.  Though, my conclusion is more along the lines of 'the pixie isn't an apropriate PC race, period.'

I could see a flying, turning-invisible, tiny PCs, though - at Paragon.  Maybe 'Pixie' could've been a Gnome Paragon Path, where the gnome goes deeper into it's feyness and shrinks & grows wings.  Hey, Dragonborn 'Scions of Arkhosia' grow wings, so why not?


----------



## Walking Dad (Oct 10, 2011)

Tiny -> not having my book in front of me, but how big was the rat the one neverwinter theme could transform into at will?

Flying -> altitude limit and if the character manages to put something of with it, he will have to let the rest of the group behind.

Invisible -> the October preview doesn't mention an invisibility racial trait.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 10, 2011)

Unwise said:


> Now comes the hardest part of deciding what class best suits a Nac Mac Feegle.



 Slayer


----------



## Danzauker (Oct 10, 2011)

Klaus said:


> See, I'd have the pixie's flight be based off the magic of the land (ley lines), so they can fly pretty well within a given distance, but if they try to fly higher, their magic goes poof and the come down crashing. Kinda like a maglev train.




That's more or less how I imagine it. Pixies levitate, not actually fly. The wings arte there for propulsion. Their natural magic only allows them to go up to 5 feet.

So if they concentrate, flap the wings a lot, they can sort of "run jump" across charms or reach higher altitudes, but after that they can't hold and must get down to their natural altitude.

Hey, it's always better that the explanation for beholder flight in 2e! At least pixies don't have to "fart around" in order to move!


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 10, 2011)

Klaus said:


> See, I'd have the pixie's flight be based off the magic of the land (ley lines), so they can fly pretty well within a given distance, but if they try to fly higher, their magic goes poof and they come down crashing. Kinda like a maglev train.




Let me see if I've gotten this aright: Pixies. Ley Lines. Maglev. 
OK, ley lines are linear, located where the hooved animals travel from one place to another: herd tracks. Maglev trains are linear, levitating just above train tracks of some kind. 

Pixies + levitation + train tracks = the "Pixie-Powered Skytrain!" (Sort of like Lightning Rail in Eberron, but more fey.) Klaus, that's brilliant! Good job. 
DMs will have little trouble railroading the Pixie PCs with that interpretation. (OK, they'll have "tiny" trouble.)

My only question is: does this make Pixie flight an extrinsic effect of the terrain, instead of its being intrinsic to the Pixie? (How would that work in the Shadowfell -- flying only every _other_ round?) 
Is there, or could there be, a specific kind of "difficult terrain" that explicitly modifies a Pixie's flight capability?


----------



## Klaus (Oct 10, 2011)

You could certainly make a pixie-exclusive difficult terrain (but that might be too much nerfing). You could *also* have specific terrain that actually *increases* the altitude limit.

As for ley lines, they technically exist in the Feywild, but you could explain away that the very ground of the world is magical, and that the actual ley lines are more powerful conduits for this ambient magic.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 10, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Tiny -> not having my book in front of me, but how big was the rat the one neverwinter theme could transform into at will?
> 
> Flying -> altitude limit and if the character manages to put something of with it, he will have to let the rest of the group behind.
> 
> Invisible -> the October preview doesn't mention an invisibility racial trait.




The Dead Rat theme turns you into a Tiny rat and one of the options for the Spellscarred theme lets you turn invisible.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 10, 2011)

Klaus said:


> You could certainly make a pixie-exclusive difficult terrain (but that might be too much nerfing). You could *also* have specific terrain that actually *increases* the altitude limit.
> 
> As for ley lines, they technically exist in the Feywild, but you could explain away that the very ground of the world is magical, and that the actual ley lines are more powerful conduits for this ambient magic.



Heavy winds should make moving difficult for pixies... so squares behind an open door could be difficult to move in... but maybe it is better treated as a current...


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 10, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Yes, mechanically, they are mostly like a Small character.
> 
> Pixies are tiny because when someone wants to play a pixie, they want to play a _super-small_ (aka Tiny) character.  Making them 4' tall would have, frankly, missed the whole point.
> 
> ...




What's wrong with making the Pixie on the low end of small and fluffing them as tiny? It worked with Goliaths and the large aspect while still keeping their medium mechanics. 

What they did is instead of putting a simple word "small" they made the pixie tiny and then had to add two abilities in order to make the pixie "small" in terms of mechanics when they could have made it small to begin with while keeping the size dimensions. I mean you have to sit there and take a minor action every 5 minutes to shrink each items down to your size so you can use it. 

There are too many mechanics there to do something that could have been settled with one word and the other space used for something else.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 10, 2011)

I really find it funny how people are trying to slap a scientific reason as to the flying capability of the Pixie. 

The fact of the matter is the Pixie was given an altitude of 1 for pure game balance.  They weren't thinking of air pressure and hovercrafts, they were thinking of game balance. The designers could not give a rats ass whether you can come up with in game logic or not as to why they can only fly so high. 

You can try to come up with an explanation using technobabble but don't try and explain it using real life science. 

At the end of the day, when Geordi La Forge explains the quantum theories of the hyper drive system it may sound all cool and real but it's still BS no matter how much you want to believe it.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 10, 2011)

We're just trying to help the folks who absolutely must have an explanation as to why a specific number of faeries can dance on the head of a pin.


----------



## bganon (Oct 11, 2011)

> > Now comes the hardest part of deciding what class best suits a Nac Mac Feegle.
> 
> 
> 
> Slayer




Brawler Fighter.

Even if that's not the best class, Brawler Pixies are pretty hilarious mechanically.  A tiny little winged princess that can smack dragons in the face and drag them around the battlefield?  And the dragon can hardly even break free?  Pure awesomesauce.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 11, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> There are too many mechanics there to do something that could have been settled with one word and the other space used for something else.



Like what?

I really can't stand this myth of wasted time or wasted space, where if it wasn't spent, there'd be magically something better in its place.

Why was all this done?  To make a pixie tiny.  You apparently don't value this.  I think it's hugely important, even though I don't want to play one.

-O


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Oct 11, 2011)

Don't feed the Troll, folks.


----------



## Marshall (Oct 11, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> So I've been thinking about this Shrink power...
> 
> Pixies probably have a high metabolism, and probably enjoy eating lots of fruits. If my Tinker were to get into a bushel of apples, she could shrink them down to bite size and polish off that bushel in no time. And no problems with digestion, seeing as how all those applies are on her person once eaten. (Well, 'in her person' is more apt.) But about eight hours later, when those apples have exited her posterior end, well, that's a lot of...
> 
> Ewww




Where do you think all that Pixie Dust comes from?


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 11, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Like what?
> 
> I really can't stand this myth of wasted time or wasted space, where if it wasn't spent, there'd be magically something better in its place.
> 
> ...




Then flavor the Pixie as tiny while keeping the mechanic small.

Pixie + Wee Warrior + Shrink Item = Small.

Small = Small.

See how much easier it would be to have the Pixie considered small to avoid going through all that.  It also opens the Pixie up for a better racial encounter power and a racial ability.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 11, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Then flavor the Pixie as tiny while keeping the mechanic small.
> 
> Pixie + Wee Warrior + Shrink Item = Small.
> 
> ...




You should consider rereading the basic game books, as you seem to have forgotten a number of rules.

* A tiny creature is smaller than any other size category.
* A tiny creature fits into a space that can only fit a tiny creature.
* A tiny creature can squeeze into spaces only a tiny creature can squeeze into.
* Four tiny creatures can fit in a square (or in certain monster stomachs).
* A tiny creature can share a space with other creatures.
* A tiny creature that gains one size category is size small, and not size medium or large.
* A tiny creature is the same size as a number of other tiny creatures, making it possible for them to reasonably mimic them using certain skills and abilities.

These all have a distinct effect on the game, through skills, feats, powers, terrain effects, and basic combat and exploration rules.

A pixie functions as small for the purpose of equipment use, and must spend actions to get full access to most equipment. That's it. It is fully a tiny creature for all other purposes.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 11, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> You should consider rereading the basic game books, as you seem to have forgotten a number of rules.
> 
> * A tiny creature is smaller than any other size category.
> * A tiny creature fits into a space that can only fit a tiny creature.
> ...




I haven't forgotten a thing. The pixie should have never been sized tiny except for flavor purposes just like the goliath. If you must have a tiny pixie then make Shrink personal only and it works on you and everything you carry.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 11, 2011)

*Racial Traits* 
*Average Height:* 0'6˝-1' 
*Average Weight:* 1-4 lb. 
*Ability Scores:* +2 Charisma; +2 Dexterity or +2 Intelligence 
*Size:* Small
*Speed:* 4 squares, fly 6 squares (altitude limit 1). You cannot use this fly speed if you are carrying more than a normal load. 
*Vision:* Low-light vision 
*Languages:* Common, Elven 
*Skill Bonuses:* +2 Nature, +2 Stealth 
*Fey Origin:*  Your ancestors were native to the Feywild, so you are considered a fey  creature for the purpose of effects that relate to creature origin. 
*Speak with Beasts:* You can communicate with natural beasts and fey beasts. 
*Wee Warrior:* You also take a –5 penalty to Strength checks to break  or force open objects. When wielding a weapon of your size, you follow  the same rules that Small creatures do when using your Shrink Self ability.​*Pixie Magic:* You have the _pixie dust _and _shrink self _powers.

I would make Shrink Self a sustainable minor action that could be used in and out of combat. Wee Warrior would give you the low end of small feeling while Shrink Self would actually give you the tiny option.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 11, 2011)

So what you want is an Essentials pixie.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 11, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> So I've been thinking about this Shrink power...
> 
> Pixies probably have a high metabolism, and probably enjoy eating lots of fruits. If my Tinker were to get into a bushel of apples, she could shrink them down to bite size and polish off that bushel in no time.




Just to point out, by the strictest application of the rules this doesn't work, since apples aren't an "object sized for a small or medium creature".

So a pixie can shrink a bench or a wagon or a house, but it can't shrink anything that wasn't manufactured with creatures of a particular size in mind.



ForeverSlayer said:


> I really find it funny how people are trying to slap a scientific reason as to the flying capability of the Pixie.




What surprises me is that all those suggestions managed to miss the simple explanation: Psychology.

The fact is, pixies are perfectly flight-worthy and don't need ground-effect or ley lines or anything to buoy them up. They just happen to suffer terribly from acrophobia, and come over all funny if they're more than a few feet off the ground.

In fact, just showing a pixie the title of this thread is enough to make him dizzy.


----------



## herrozerro (Oct 11, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> *Racial Traits*
> *Average Height:* 0'6˝-1'
> *Average Weight:* 1-4 lb.
> *Ability Scores:* +2 Charisma; +2 Dexterity or +2 Intelligence
> ...




Well im glad your not in charge of it then


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 11, 2011)

Could things such as doors be considered objects which are sized for medium characters?  I could see shrink being used as an easy way to bypass a locked door or perhaps making a bridge smaller so as to make it more difficult for an enemy to cross.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 11, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Could things such as doors be considered objects which are sized for medium characters?  I could see shrink being used as an easy way to bypass a locked door or perhaps making a bridge smaller so as to make it more difficult for an enemy to cross.




Nah. Until the object was removed from the landscape or architecture it would simply be a part of a much larger object. If a pixie wants to shrink a door they have to yank it off its hinges first.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Oct 11, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Nah. Until the object was removed from the landscape or architecture it would simply be a part of a much larger object. If a pixie wants to shrink a door they have to yank it off its hinges first.




This is true, but I  CAN still think of a slew of ways that a Pixie could use that power. It would be a great way to smuggle stuff into some place for instance. How about shrinking a whole lot of stuff and then dropping it in a sack? Kinda the poor man's bag of holding. Want to steal a statue? Heh, well, it is a lot easier if it is 6 inches high... The limitations placed on the power will deal with a number of situations, but not all of them. Creative pixie players are going to find some rather interesting ways to use Shrink.


----------



## Siberys (Oct 11, 2011)

Shrink doesn't affect weight, though, so that statue'll still be a couple hundred pounds, assuming we're talking a man-sized statue...


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 11, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> This is true, but I  CAN still think of a slew of ways that a Pixie could use that power. It would be a great way to smuggle stuff into some place for instance. How about shrinking a whole lot of stuff and then dropping it in a sack? Kinda the poor man's bag of holding. Want to steal a statue? Heh, well, it is a lot easier if it is 6 inches high... The limitations placed on the power will deal with a number of situations, but not all of them. Creative pixie players are going to find some rather interesting ways to use Shrink.




Absolutely. Shrink is one of the most interesting powers in the game, and pixies are the natural smugglers and thieves of the Feywild.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 11, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> II could see a flying, turning-invisible, tiny PCs, though - at Paragon.  Maybe 'Pixie' could've been a Gnome Paragon Path, where the gnome goes deeper into it's feyness and shrinks & grows wings.  Hey, Dragonborn 'Scions of Arkhosia' grow wings, so why not?



And, what the heck, here it is:

Vassal of Mab


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Oct 12, 2011)

I like the synergy WotC used between their Tiny size and Pick Expertise (extra damage vs. larger enemies) to encourage picks-ey pixies.

Sad Trombone






(I'm sorry, that was really uncalled for.)


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 15, 2011)

I might be coming with this really late but has anyone noticed that the two-handed heavy war pick as the "small" property?


----------



## Klaus (Oct 15, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I might be coming with this really late but has anyone noticed that the two-handed heavy war pick as the "small" property?



It's so it can be used by gnomes, since picks are a traditional weapon for D&D gnomes.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 15, 2011)

Klaus said:


> It's so it can be used by gnomes, since picks are a traditional weapon for D&D gnomes.




Well since a gnome can use it a Pixie could use it. That's a d12 in the hands of a Pixie. Who needs a Fullblade when you can use a two-handed heavy war pick?


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 15, 2011)

I also see that the Pike has the "small" keyword as well. I can imagine a Pixie Fighter with a pike and using the same square as the fellow PC he/she is defending.


----------



## keterys (Oct 15, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Well since a gnome can use it a Pixie could use it. That's a d12 in the hands of a Pixie. Who needs a Fullblade when you can use a two-handed heavy war pick?



The fullblade has better stats, and there are other benefits to using different weapon types too - the pixie I just made will be using a rapier, for example... 

but sure, picks are solid weapons for pixies. Just like they are for gnomes and halflings.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Oct 15, 2011)

keterys said:


> The fullblade has better stats, and there are other benefits to using different weapon types too - the pixie I just made will be using a rapier, for example...
> 
> but sure, picks are solid weapons for pixies. Just like they are for gnomes and halflings.




In all fairness the fullblade only has a better "to hit". I just imagine a fighter pixie sitting on the shoulders of the Wizard and using her Pike with feats like Polearm Gamble and Polearm Momentum while wearing Rushing Cleats.


----------



## keterys (Oct 15, 2011)

Eh, probably better off on the shoulders of a thief or someone else who might actually want to be anywhere near a battle. On the wizard, not so helpful.

Though the game doesn't really have good rules about carrying other creatures, and if you treat them as mounted (which there are rules for) they lose a character's worth of actions - so you probably want to fly separately from a character to be safe. 

MME did address the gap in weapon usage between small and medium creatures, though, narrowing it somewhat. Much like the change to the rapier did some months ago - the game has basically been erasing the penalties for small characters melee-ing. Which is fine, not like they got bonuses to counterbalance them.

Anyhow, I encourage you to try some pixies out at some point. I have, and they still play fine. Especially if you want to use melee of any kind. The way to try to break them is more like having a ranged one on a raptor mount or similar... but it's not much different than a ranger on a pegasus. Or just standing 30 squares away. You personally take less damage, but your party takes your share of it instead, and you're generally giving up something to pull it off. *shrug*


----------



## Klaus (Oct 16, 2011)

If you only care about the [W] size, then yeah, the war pick is awesome. But if the character wants to build upon his weapon of choice, the pixie is better served with light blades, to make use of their Dexterity.

A pixie Rogue (scoundrel) with Artful Dodger can benefit greatly from the bonus to AC against opportunity attacks and the many movement-granting powers, since they'll be ignoring difficult terrain most of the time.


----------



## ourchair (Oct 17, 2011)

I am now determined to make an entire party of pixie adventurers.

As the villains of my campaign.


----------



## Walking Dad (Oct 17, 2011)

If you want to know how 4e Pixies look like:

In this excerpt is a download-link to a pdf. Picture of Pixies on it's last page.


----------

