The Pixie is up!

[Matt James]

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]

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.

Immovable shafts are pretty fun

That's what your wife keeps telling me.

 

[Incenjucar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.