PIXIE: Great Race... or The Greatest Race?

[Deset Gled]

IME, playing a pixie is very fun, but not very optimized.

The real limitation is that pixies will always have jack squat for hitpoints. They do well as a skirmish style class (rogue, scout), but they are so fragile that you have to play very defensively to make sure you never get hit or trapped. And the small size makes it that much harder to do decent damage. The +4 LA is just too much of a delay to build an effective offensive caster, and there's no way they could ever tank.

The absolute best option for a pixie is an assassin, but this breaks your "no PrC" rule. They can completely rock out with the death attack. They can also do a decent job in a support role as a battlefield medic (cleric) or bard, if you're willing to give up anything resembling personal glory for the good of the team.

 

[am181d]

While I'm personally OK with monster races (goblins, kobolds, orcs, etc.) as playable characters, I think there's a big difference between traditional "monster" races and traditional "ally" races.

What party goes out slaughtering pixies???

I should also mention that I ran a campaign once that replaced the traditional alt-races (elf, dwarf, halfling, etc.) with choices of pixie, ogre, beastman (reskinned shifter) and clockwork man (reskinned warforged). Overall, I felt that this did a good job of maintaining the fantasy feel of the campaign without making it so generically D&D.

 

[NEXxREX]

I am of the opinion that monsters belong in the Monster Manual and on the other side of the DM screen. The occasional campaign of monster PCs is fine and it is nice that the rules are internally consistent enough to allow for such things with ease. But just because the pixie has a level adjustment listed does not mean it is appropriate for all campaigns. I can see it being far more appropriate as a cohort or something of that nature. But that does not mean it should be seriously considered as a player character option in most cases.

certain campaigns yes, but say if the only options for characters were elves, humans, dwarves, gnomes, and orcs then dnd wouldn't be as fun as it is. the most fun of the game is thining about the possibilities, then seeing what would work or what would get you in trouble.

and sometimes you just really feel like playing that half-dragon stonechild with a +7 LA even though you know its a bad idea.

 

[airwalkrr]

Well, [MENTION=6681393]NEXxREX[/MENTION], I guess you and I are just going to have to agree that we have a different vision of the game. Personally, I never grow tired of playing elf wizards. Probably about 90% of my characters have been elf wizards (or magic-users in the old days). For me, there is a certain level of mystery and fantasy to the game that is lost when things like pixies become playable as PCs. Do not get me wrong here. I think monster campaigns (or Savage Species campaigns or whatever you want to call them) are fine for a little change of pace every now and then, but I have never had the inclination to run such a campaign and I have rarely encountered players who wanted to play in such a campaign. I know there is a niche market for it, but if every campaign was full of pixie, ogre and mind flayer PCs I think a certain part of the game would be lost.

As a DM, I do not really like the idea of players sticking their nose in the Monster Manual. For me that is a DM source. There should be a certain element of mystery and wonder when one encounters a pixie. The players should be asking themselves, "What are their powers? Can we trust them?" and things like that, not "Oh, I've played a pixie before. Watch out for their sleep arrows and invisibility." Unfortunately, the publishing of Savage Species and the addition of LA to all Monster Manual supplements gives players the impression that these are perfectly acceptable player character races and encourages the wrong sort of entitlement mindset in my opinion. It creates a bit of a headache for me as a DM because monsters with unexpected powers are no longer unexpected. They become hum-drum and trite. I have dealt with this by transforming virtually every creature that the players encounter to swap out existing powers with unique powers not listed in the Monster Manual to maintain that element of surprise. Of course certain players nowadays are spoiled and seem to think that such action by the DM is somehow unfair and outright wrong. I think many of these players miss the point. It is frustrating to me. I think many of these players are the same people who play MMOs and have done every quest in the game so many times they know exactly what to expect and they want the same thing from D&D. Well, that is not the game that I want to play, not in tabletop anyway.

I will stop now before I digress too much.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

As a DM, I do not really like the idea of players sticking their nose in the Monster Manual. For me that is a DM source. There should be a certain element of mystery and wonder when one encounters a pixie. The players should be asking themselves, "What are their powers? Can we trust them?" and things like that, not "Oh, I've played a pixie before. Watch out for their sleep arrows and invisibility."

And how do you deal with a PC with high Int and many knowledge ranks, who can look at a pixie and identify it? Or a player who's fought one before and remembers some of their powers? Players knowing the monster books backwards and forwards isn't a result of letting people play monsters, it's a result of people playing the game a lot, and if they can't separate player knowledge and character knowledge, that's a separate problem.

 

[airwalkrr]

And how do you deal with a PC with high Int and many knowledge ranks, who can look at a pixie and identify it? Or a player who's fought one before and remembers some of their powers? Players knowing the monster books backwards and forwards isn't a result of letting people play monsters, it's a result of people playing the game a lot, and if they can't separate player knowledge and character knowledge, that's a separate problem.

Well the answer to your first question is simple. The players roll a Knowledge check and I give out information based on how well they roll. But I digress. Actually the point here is that most players are simply not very good at separating player knowledge and character knowledge. As human beings it is difficult to forget something one already knows. If a trial is being held before a jury and the jury hears testimony or is presented with evidence that the judge dismisses as being illegally acquired, it generally leads to a mistrial. The judge can order the jury not to consider the evidence in their verdict, but the jury will not be able to simply forget it.

This is why I do not like discussions of using monsters as player characters. Once information is in the hands of the players, it is difficult for them to forget. Players having encountered a monster before is one thing. But for a player to actively read the Monster Manual for the purpose of coming up with hypothetical character ideas when he has no intention of running a game is something I do not like to see encouraged.

Anyway, I have taken this thread far off-topic and seeing how I do not wish to contribute to the discussion of what class/feat combo makes the best pixie, I will bow out of this discussion.