The Pixie is up!

[Tony Vargas]

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]

- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!"

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

However, 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.

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]

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]

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]

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.