PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Flight and Wizard Powers



Crow
2008-06-09, 08:10 PM
Way back in 3.5, it was stated by some (on these very boards) that pretty much every character needed to have flight available to them as early as 5th level. Flight was so important that 20th-level characters would fall to flying wizards if they did not have it.

I was wondering, from those who have gotten to browse the books; In your opinion, how important does flight look in the new edition? Has it's importance diminished?



And a side question; What wizard powers look the juiciest to you? Legion's Hold looks pretty sweet, but it seems like Sleep would get the same job done. What about Utility powers?

Chronicled
2008-06-09, 08:52 PM
Flight was so important that 20th-level characters would fall to flying wizards if they did not have it.

This was actually due to the large number of higher-level monsters in the Monster Manual that could fly; without flight meleers could not engage them effectively. Additionally, avoiding creatures that didn't have flight was much easier if you did.

I can't comment on the 4e stuff, though.

TheOOB
2008-06-09, 11:44 PM
Flight seems more difficult to get now, and the vast majority of ways you gain flight are only temporary. Flight is something you use to gain a tactical advantage now it seems, not something that is the default.

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-10, 12:57 AM
That could be a problem if there's a lot of flying enermies (unless the melee people can also use bows effectively). Not being able to use flight to avoid certain hazards could also be a problem in a lot of cases.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-10, 01:13 AM
Flight seems more difficult to get now, and the vast majority of ways you gain flight are only temporary. Flight is something you use to gain a tactical advantage now it seems, not something that is the default.

This is the impression I've gotten, and it's great. Flight is one of those adventure-ruining abilities that force you to design everything around it. (For a 3D example, check out Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - there's a reason they took out the flight spells between III and IV.)

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-10, 01:16 AM
This is the impression I've gotten, and it's great. Flight is one of those adventure-ruining abilities that force you to design everything around it. (For a 3D example, check out Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - there's a reason they took out the flight spells between III and IV.)

Preach it

Anyone that ever had to DM a group that had a Warlock in it or some wizard that had perma fly and reigned down fireballs can tell you from experience that flying PCs were a lot harder to plan for.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-10, 01:35 AM
To all those saying that there's no long-term flight options, I invite you to turn to p70 of your PHB, and look at the spell 'cloud chariot'.

Orzel
2008-06-10, 01:43 AM
They really reduced PC flight

There's pretty much:
The carpet
Cloud Chariot
Some angel spell
Mantle of the seven winds
and a pair of hoppy boots.

But most creatures can't do jack while flying anyways. An the ones that can, can't for long. And the one that can attack well while flying get arrowed, bolted, blasted, or missiled, fall down down, and die via curse/SA/quarry.

No scary, flying, breath attack all the time monsters.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-10, 01:49 AM
To all those saying that there's no long-term flight options, I invite you to turn to p70 of your PHB, and look at the spell 'cloud chariot'.

You know, I'm pretty OK with a level 22 cleric getting a long-term flight option.

The problem was when the 5th level Wizard/Cleric got it.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-10, 01:55 AM
You know, I'm pretty OK with a level 22 cleric getting a long-term flight option.

The problem was when the 5th level Wizard/Cleric got it.

But now four people are flying and don't have to use move actions. All day. And get cover.

Excal
2008-06-10, 02:05 AM
And are all sitting in one juicy little target.

Animefunkmaster
2008-06-10, 02:16 AM
You know, I'm pretty OK with a level 22 cleric getting a long-term flight option.

The problem was when the 5th level Wizard/Cleric got it.

3.5 levels =/= 4e levels. A 5th level wizard does indeed get to fly, for 5 minutes per day... what this is more comparable to this is overland flight that can be chained to your buddies... Overland flight can be cast at level 9.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-10, 02:40 AM
But now four people are flying and don't have to use move actions. All day. And get cover.

Level 22.

That's frickin' Epic Tier challenges. They're going to be facing world-threatening-monsters, and are already well on their Paragon Paths. I think I can cut these fellows a little slack and let them fly in a shiny chariot.

Level 5? Not so much. A flying 5th level wizard with a wand of fireballs could nuke challenges several levels above his party's EL, and forced the DM to invent ludicrous challenges to prevent it (or send the party into kobold caves all the time).

EDIT:

3.5 levels =/= 4e levels. A 5th level wizard does indeed get to fly, for 5 minutes per day... what this is more comparable to this is overland flight that can be chained to your buddies... Overland flight can be cast at level 9.

I was referring to 3.0 Fly, which was the worst offender. Overland Flight was a great change, but even 3.5 fly allowed the "death from above" wizard to work.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-10, 02:42 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty okay with Paragon-tier parties getting flight, especially when it's pretty unusable in combat.

Gort
2008-06-10, 05:41 AM
There are a number of very effective spells and abilities that have a big influence on adventure design.

1) Flight - too easy to avoid terrain and traveling encounters, major effect in many combat situations.
2) Teleport - too easy to avoid terrain and traveling encounters. I expect that we will see a lot of walls 5 squares thick to get around the Eladrin's movement power. I'm glad it's a ritual in 4th Ed.
3) ESP - never need to think in a social situation again.

How many of the plots of fantasy books would be totally neutered by these abilities. They really restrict what sort of game a GM can design. I'm glad that they are not readily available to players in the heroic tier.

:smallsmile:

SamTheCleric
2008-06-10, 07:36 AM
Warlocks can get a flight power that lasts the encounter... Shadowform. Level 10.

That's the earliest sustainable flight power.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-10, 07:49 AM
Yeah but when they do it, they can't take standard actions. So really they won't be flying around the battlefield shooting eldritch blasts out of their eyes.

Tokiko Mima
2008-06-10, 07:52 AM
I know there probably aren't rules for Monster PC's yet, but what happens when I transfer a 3.5 Pixie Warlock into a 4e Pixie Warlock? Will that wreck things to have permanent natural flight at level 1?

SamTheCleric
2008-06-10, 07:53 AM
Yeah but when they do it, they can't take standard actions. So really they won't be flying around the battlefield shooting eldritch blasts out of their eyes.

I didn't say they would. I just was pointing it out. :smallwink:

Fly, the level 16 wizard power, can be sustained for an entire encounter if you give up all your minor actions to do so.


I know there probably aren't rules for Monster PC's yet, but what happens when I transfer a 3.5 Pixie Warlock into a 4e Pixie Warlock? Will that wreck things to have permanent natural flight at level 1?

There are rules for Monster PCs (bugbear, minotaur, githyanki etc). Githyanki get a once per encounter power to let themself or an ally fly 5 squares (psionic jump I think its called).

I don't know if you'll be able to play a Pixie by RAW in 4e... and making them have perma-fly would be unbalancing.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-10, 07:55 AM
I know there probably aren't rules for Monster PC's yet, but what happens when I transfer a 3.5 Pixie Warlock into a 4e Pixie Warlock? Will that wreck things to have permanent natural flight at level 1?

You're not supposed to transfer characters from 3E to 4E, and the fact that 4E has no available races in PHB or MM that have permanent flight abilities from level 1, is entirely by design.

Tokiko Mima
2008-06-10, 09:32 AM
There are rules for Monster PCs (bugbear, minotaur, githyanki etc). Githyanki get a once per encounter power to let themself or an ally fly 5 squares (psionic jump I think its called).

I don't know if you'll be able to play a Pixie by RAW in 4e... and making them have perma-fly would be unbalancing.

Well, I did hear they weren't in MM4e, but they're pretty much a staple fantasy race. It's also not like they're the only PC race that could fly, either. If the 4e system is designed not to handle flying things well, it's kind of a failure in the system itself to represent fantasy universes, isn't it?

I mean, isn't obtaining flight one of the first things most people would do with magic? It seems wierd to build an artificial limit and ban races that have always been able to fly on the basis that non-flyers can't compete. Is 1-to-1 balance that much more important than actually covering the genre you're supposed to model?


You're not supposed to transfer characters from 3E to 4E, and the fact that 4E has no available races in PHB or MM that have permanent flight abilities from level 1, is entirely by design.

"Not supposed to?" What does that mean? I'm aware that 4e is an entirely new system and direct conversion is not possible but you'll have to explain to me why "creating characters of certain races is impossible by design" is a good idea for a broad fantasy simulation. It's rather short-sighted, IMO.

I'm sorry, I'm not attacking either of you... I'm just a little flabbergasted that this kind of poor logic is actually built into 4e. :smallfrown:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-10, 10:20 AM
I'm sorry, I'm not attacking either of you... I'm just a little flabbergasted that this kind of poor logic is actually built into 4e. :smallfrown:

So... 4e isn't really "designed" to be a broad-based fantasy simulation. Neither was 3rd, really. 1st Edition was designed to emulate a tactical miniatures game (Chainmail) and it included Tolkenesque elements to, in essence, "create" a new style of fantasy. GURPS Fantasy, as far as I know, is the only "broad based fantasy simulator" out there, really.

Long-term flight, long-range teleportation, and the like became deeply problematic for adventure designers over the course of D&D, so WotC has removed those races from the the core of 4e... at least as player choices.

Note also that there are lots of flight powers running around still, but they are deeply limited so as to not allow the "flying nukes" that previous editions allowed. Also note that, so long as you decide not to take a short rest, any "encounter length" power can keep running indefinitely (as far as I can tell). I'd probably put a limit on how long anyone can actual keep up concentration like that (Endurance checks, I suppose) but there we go.

If you really, really, want to play a faerie, you'll have to homebrew it. This isn't a failure of D&D, per se, but a conscious decision by the WotC designers to limit the possibilities of game-breaking combos. As you'll note, you can break the game at Epic Levels, but the rules explicitly say that, when you're that powerful, you should be able to.

Xefas
2008-06-10, 11:01 AM
Well, I did hear they weren't in MM4e, but they're pretty much a staple fantasy race. It's also not like they're the only PC race that could fly, either. If the 4e system is designed not to handle flying things well, it's kind of a failure in the system itself to represent fantasy universes, isn't it?

I mean, isn't obtaining flight one of the first things most people would do with magic? It seems wierd to build an artificial limit and ban races that have always been able to fly on the basis that non-flyers can't compete. Is 1-to-1 balance that much more important than actually covering the genre you're supposed to model?

Yeah, I understand your plight. I've always wanted to be a Dragon at first level and fly around killing everything effortlessly while the rest of my party sits around doing absolutely nothing. I mean, Dragons are a staple of fantasy! How could they possibly justify stopping me from playing one on some stupid nebulous concept of "balance"?

Is balance really important, anyway? If I want to be a Dragon and make the rest of my party feel redundant, like they're just riding my coattails the entire time, I should damn well be able to do so. What kind of money grubbing whores would put an artificial limit on the races and ban me from playing a Dragon just because everyone else can't compete?

They aren't covering the genre well at all.

Counterspin
2008-06-10, 11:11 AM
I like the 4e method. They work their hardest to provide a balanced tactical system. If you want to go beyond that, it's quite easy, but don't come crying to them about how it broke your game.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-10, 11:16 AM
I'm sorry, I'm not attacking either of you... I'm just a little flabbergasted that this kind of poor logic is actually built into 4e. :smallfrown:

As others have said, it's pretty decent logic actually.

JaxGaret had a notion that using the exp values to give equivalencies you might be able to play 'elite' monsters as PC's of equal level. If you wanted to play a Pixie Warlock then you could take a Pixie and slap on the Warlock template up to 4 times.

Of course, this means that you will also have to wait for them to release Pixies... who were left out of the 4e MM as far as I can tell.

Tokiko Mima
2008-06-10, 11:45 AM
So... 4e isn't really "designed" to be a broad-based fantasy simulation. Neither was 3rd, really. 1st Edition was designed to emulate a tactical miniatures game (Chainmail) and it included Tolkenesque elements to, in essence, "create" a new style of fantasy. GURPS Fantasy, as far as I know, is the only "broad based fantasy simulator" out there, really.

Long-term flight, long-range teleportation, and the like became deeply problematic for adventure designers over the course of D&D, so WotC has removed those races from the the core of 4e... at least as player choices.

Note also that there are lots of flight powers running around still, but they are deeply limited so as to not allow the "flying nukes" that previous editions allowed. Also note that, so long as you decide not to take a short rest, any "encounter length" power can keep running indefinitely (as far as I can tell). I'd probably put a limit on how long anyone can actual keep up concentration like that (Endurance checks, I suppose) but there we go.

If you really, really, want to play a faerie, you'll have to homebrew it. This isn't a failure of D&D, per se, but a conscious decision by the WotC designers to limit the possibilities of game-breaking combos. As you'll note, you can break the game at Epic Levels, but the rules explicitly say that, when you're that powerful, you should be able to.

It is a failure and the fact that I can homebrew around it doesn't mean that it's not a problem. The situation seems to rather clearly state that 4e is more limited and stunted game than 3e, since 3e is in this case a more adaptable and powerful system for developing Fantasy universes in general.

It is also dangerous because limitless flight and teleportation actually does have the potential to end up in the players hands at low levels. If this happens, the system breaks because it has no counterbalance for these powers and the players run amuck. It's exactly like the Serpent Kingdom designer not expecting Manipulate Form to ever end up in Pun-Pun's hands. It's not a matter of "if," it WILL happen. It's only a matter of 'what splat book?'


Yeah, I understand your plight. I've always wanted to be a Dragon at first level and fly around killing everything effortlessly while the rest of my party sits around doing absolutely nothing. I mean, Dragons are a staple of fantasy! How could they possibly justify stopping me from playing one on some stupid nebulous concept of "balance"?

Is balance really important, anyway? If I want to be a Dragon and make the rest of my party feel redundant, like they're just riding my coattails the entire time, I should damn well be able to do so. What kind of money grubbing whores would put an artificial limit on the races and ban me from playing a Dragon just because everyone else can't compete?

They aren't covering the genre well at all.

Obviously wanting to play the D&D equivalent of a flying M1 Abrams tank would also be overpowered. Understand that your dragon is not bad simply because it's flying. 3e seemed to handle flying reasonably well, so I know it's not impossible for 4e to have done the same thing. The fact that it doesn't is a failing no matter how sarcastically you strawman it.

Albatross
2008-06-10, 11:45 AM
Flight is one of those adventure-ruining abilities that force you to design everything around it. (For a 3D example, check out Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - there's a reason they took out the flight spells between III and IV.)

-and-


Long-term flight, long-range teleportation, and the like became deeply problematic for adventure designers over the course of D&D, so WotC has removed those races from the the core of 4e... at least as player choices.

In other words, because they weren't creative enough to come up with built-in alternatives or counters, they instead decided to hose the mechanic into nigh-uselessness? I'm sorry, but that's a lack of creativity. They were faced with a problem and, rather than present a reasonable solution, they instead try their best to remove the problem itself entirely... but just for players. The monsters, of course, still have an edge in this area.

I'll use Gort's examples for simple solutions:


1) Flight - too easy to avoid terrain and traveling encounters, major effect in many combat situations.
2) Teleport - too easy to avoid terrain and traveling encounters. I expect that we will see a lot of walls 5 squares thick to get around the Eladrin's movement power. I'm glad it's a ritual in 4th Ed.
3) ESP - never need to think in a social situation again.
1) Flight: At low levels, such as five, flight was a very short-ranged ability. In combat, it's true the Wizard could fly up and rain down death... while having no cover, against foes that could easily detect him, and hoping that the enemies (three to five for an average encounter) didn't spread out and begin assaulting his ~20 hit point self with ranged fire. At higher levels it becomes a pain, but there's plenty of ways to counter it, since any sort of entangling effect or mental lockdown still removed the flyer from the fight. At even higher levels, nearly everything can have access to it or just dispell a mass of it in one go and watch everyone tumble down to the ground.
2) Teleport: At the level which this spell is acquire, it's pretty much assumed that the party need not travel back to anywhere they've already been by means of hiking. It changes travel times to seconds as opposed to months, and gets rid of a bunch of low level encounters. One still can't use it to go just wherever, not without some advance spellwork to scout the location--which most higher-level destinations have easy ways of blocking, whether it be with other spells to cause misdirection, or physical limitations (thick stone walls with a thin lead sheet built into them), or the like.
3) ESP is great in many social situations... except the really important ones, which at the level it can be used, also has many counters. The fact that most people consider the campaign world to be like the real world several hundred years ago doesn't help the case much. In a world where spells and magic exist, the society will adapt. Counts and Kings will have mind-protecting enchantments on their signet rings, higher level Fey and Outsiders will just reply with "Hey, how's it going?" without moving their lips, etc.

All of these are solutions to the problem presented. None of them arbitrarily make it so that the problem does not exist in the first place. The thing is, these effects don't need to always be countered, because sometimes it is fun to have an advantage over the enemy now and then and be able to exploit it to the fullest. Unofrtunately, that capability has been removed from 4E as well.

---


Yeah, I understand your plight. I've always wanted to be a Dragon at first level and fly around killing everything effortlessly while the rest of my party sits around doing absolutely nothing.
*clapclapclapclap* That's the most beautiful burning of a STRAWMAN I've ever seen in my life. Kudos! Nevermind that what you said had nothing whatsoever at all to do with what Tokiko Mima stated, except possibly to magnify it to a ludicrous degree for purposes of making fun of it. But, ironicially, even that fails, because in your second unhelpful paradoy you state:


What kind of money grubbing whores would put an artificial limit on the races and ban me from playing a Dragon just because everyone else can't compete?
Perhaps you missed in your spoofing where 3.X actually does have rules for you playing Dragons. I know this isn't important, as you thought your spoofing of the other poster to be quite clever, but please try addressing his (or her) arguments directly instead of parodying them beyond usefulness.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-10, 11:50 AM
They took away ECL and Level Adjustments... so, for a Pixie... let's see...

You wouldn't be able to wield 2 handed, versatile or heavy blades. You would be limited to light blades... maybe heavy blades in 2 hands. (keep you in line with the halflings not being able to wield two handed weapons and only versatile weapons in 2 hands) +2 Dex and +2 Cha. +2 Stealth and +2 Bluff. Encounter power... Turn invisible until the end of your next turn. If you make an attack, the invisibility ends.

That'd be as close to a pixie as you'd get. If you added in flight, it would be unbalancing to the races currently offered as monster races.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-10, 12:10 PM
In other words, because they weren't creative enough to come up with built-in alternatives or counters, they instead decided to hose the mechanic into nigh-uselessness? I'm sorry, but that's a lack of creativity. They were faced with a problem and, rather than present a reasonable solution, they instead try their best to remove the problem itself entirely... but just for players. The monsters, of course, still have an edge in this area.

There are actually two issues there that you are conflating into one.

1. Reducing general PC ability to fly.

2. Providing playable monster races for monsters that have a signifigant advantage over PC's (such as flight).

You can certianly argue that not providing both is a lack of creativity. My response to which would be, simmer down, as it is for each individually.

Regarding 1, yes they made it more difficult for PC's to fly. PC's need to wait longer before they can take to the skies. This seems to be a thematic change as much as anything else. There aren't that many Monsters I can see in the heroic tier that can fly themselves and the ones that do so seem to do so under their own power, rather than magically.

Regarding 2, can we all admit that the 3.x mechanics for making playable monster races in Core sucked? The few races they have released in the MM seem to function a heck of a lot better than than their 3.x counterparts. Is it perhaps a problem that what were high LA creatures in 3x are not yet playable? Maybe, but we don't yet have a 4e equivalent of Savage Species. We might get one.



2) Teleport: At the level which this spell is acquire, it's pretty much assumed that the party need not travel back to anywhere they've already been by means of hiking. It changes travel times to seconds as opposed to months, and gets rid of a bunch of low level encounters. One still can't use it to go just wherever, not without some advance spellwork to scout the location--which most higher-level destinations have easy ways of blocking, whether it be with other spells to cause misdirection, or physical limitations (thick stone walls with a thin lead sheet built into them), or the like.

Yes. They seemed to have fixed this by still allowing them to travel back, via ritiual (so that it takes minutes instead of months, which is better narrativley so that the entire party can't just pop off in the middle of a battle), to places that they have already been and the DM wants them to be able to bypass the travel time too. Also, the lead lined or thick stone wall is home brew eh al la Dunegonomicon right?


Perhaps you missed in your spoofing where 3.X actually does have rules for you playing Dragons.

At very high LA with racial HD. The only times it became remotley possible to practically play a dragon by RAW was toward the very end of the 3.5 run, if then. All of the playable races from the MM thus far released in 4e have been playable from level 1. Dragons have never, ever, been playable from level 1. Some races have too many built in adavantages to reasonably be playable with their powers from level one. It might be that pixies will be relased at sompoint as a playable race, but I'll bet huge stacks of something valuable that they won't have the ability to fly (or no more than the Gith's do) at level 1, nor should they. Negotiating that with class levels, in order to keep the party on the same footing mechanically, is no easy task.

Vortling
2008-06-10, 12:17 PM
They took away ECL and Level Adjustments... so, for a Pixie... let's see...

You wouldn't be able to wield 2 handed, versatile or heavy blades. You would be limited to light blades... maybe heavy blades in 2 hands. (keep you in line with the halflings not being able to wield two handed weapons and only versatile weapons in 2 hands) +2 Dex and +2 Cha. +2 Stealth and +2 Bluff. Encounter power... Turn invisible until the end of your next turn. If you make an attack, the invisibility ends.

That'd be as close to a pixie as you'd get. If you added in flight, it would be unbalancing to the races currently offered as monster races.

You could always throw in racial feats for the other things you want and make them the appropriate tier. After all, don't dragonborn get a racial feat that allows them flight?

SamTheCleric
2008-06-10, 12:19 PM
You could always throw in racial feats for the other things you want and make them the appropriate tier. After all, don't dragonborn get a racial feat that allows them flight?

Not that I know of... they have Dragonborn Frenzy (extra damage while bloodied), Enlarged Breath (blast 5 instead of 3) and Empowered Dragon Breath (d8 instead of d6)

I could be wrong though... I'm not at my books.

hamishspence
2008-06-10, 12:22 PM
no, they do not (yet, NPC dragonborn have a high level flying version)

1st level dragons. Draconomicon sadly did not do them. Dragon mag did (both chromatic, and metallic). Works like Savage Species. Which is not very popular. But, if you had Dragon mag issues 320 or 332, and a friendly DM, you could play a dragon from 1st level.

Vortling
2008-06-10, 12:29 PM
no, they do not (yet, NPC dragonborn have a high level flying version)

Dragonborn have moved from 'possibly interesting' to 'definitely not worth bothering' in my estimation. Why bother playing the dragon race if you don't eventually get wings? :smallfrown:

nepphi
2008-06-10, 12:30 PM
It is a failure and the fact that I can homebrew around it doesn't mean that it's not a problem.
...
The fact that it doesn't is a failing no matter how sarcastically you strawman it.

I must respectfully disagree here; this isn't a failing, it's a limitation.

A failure occurs when a game sets out to accomplish a certain task, and does not meet that task. The set goal for 4e was in-party balance and simplified combat. Allowing characters to fly indefinitely was never a design goal of the system.

Is it a limitation? Yes. There are other systems that have less of a limitation on flying. But given as limiting the versatility of flying was part of their goal in establishing party balance, this isn't a failing. They accomplished what they set out to do, which is to bring the wizard back into line and parity with the rest of the party, rather than standing out as incomparably powerful.

seedjar
2008-06-10, 12:46 PM
At very high LA with racial HD. The only times it became remotley possible to practically play a dragon by RAW was toward the very end of the 3.5 run, if then. All of the playable races from the MM thus far released in 4e have been playable from level 1. Dragons have never, ever, been playable from level 1. Some races have too many built in adavantages to reasonably be playable with their powers from level one. It might be that pixies will be relased at sompoint as a playable race, but I'll bet huge stacks of something valuable that they won't have the ability to fly (or no more than the Gith's do) at level 1, nor should they. Negotiating that with class levels, in order to keep the party on the same footing mechanically, is no easy task.

If your argument is based on an assumption, isn't it nicer to state it before you proceed? I think most of us that have dinked around with the 3ed rules have already realized that Tokiko's problem here is 4ed's lack of congruency with 3ed LAs and racial HD.
Tokiko, how about subbing in a Levitate-like power until flight is a reasonable option? (You could even make it non-magical.) That way, you're still flying, just not mobile enough that the DM has to revise their tactics.
~Joe

PS - It really doesn't surprise me that we've yet to see rules for playing monsters. Balance is a big priority on the 4ed to-do list (if Wizards' press releases are taken at face value) so I don't think they're just going to slap some rules-of-thumb and hope for the best. Wizards is very conscious of internet communities like ours now. Back in 3ed development, I don't think anyone ever asked the question, "What happens if someone finds an exploitable loophole and disseminates it near-effortlessly to tens of thousands of optimization-obsessed players via a highly accessible worldwide information network?" Times change - they know, for one, that there will be homebrew solutions available in every flavor conceivable. They also know that anything officially published as a rule becomes ammunition for folks who are concerned with the soundness of RAW without DM arbitration. 4ed does seem a lot nerfy-er than 3ed, but why is anyone surprised? Take a look at the "Ask Wizards" columns and then tell me how the vocal part of the community wasn't just begging for it.

Tokiko Mima
2008-06-10, 01:10 PM
There are actually two issues there that you are conflating into one.

1. Reducing general PC ability to fly.

2. Providing playable monster races for monsters that have a signifigant advantage over PC's (such as flight).

You can certianly argue that not providing both is a lack of creativity. My response to which would be, simmer down, as it is for each individually.

Regarding 1, yes they made it more difficult for PC's to fly. PC's need to wait longer before they can take to the skies. This seems to be a thematic change as much as anything else. There aren't that many Monsters I can see in the heroic tier that can fly themselves and the ones that do so seem to do so under their own power, rather than magically.

I don't see how it makes much difference how they manage to fly, magically or not, unless there's a lot of anti-magic fields around every PC. The fact that they (the monsters) can and the PCs can't is a disparity in and of itself. It means that if the PCs somehow manage to play a low level monster race (via the 4e equivalent of an awakened hawk, splat book, plot item, etc.) that they will be granted a huge advantage just by virtue of the system assuming that low level PC's can't fly. 4e is building in a weakness that will be inherent to the system, and require quite a bit to work around.


Regarding 2, can we all admit that the 3.x mechanics for making playable monster races in Core sucked? The few races they have released in the MM seem to function a heck of a lot better than than their 3.x counterparts. Is it perhaps a problem that what were high LA creatures in 3x are not yet playable? Maybe, but we don't yet have a 4e equivalent of Savage Species. We might get one.

Yes, but the problem here is the 4e is set up to be broken the moment a PC could fly at low levels, and pixies obviously fly and are relatively weak monsters. So if at some later point they are statted, mechanics themselves would limit pixies from PC play (or force the same level adjustment nonsense you didn't like.) I'm guessing they will just allow certain humanoid races only for the heroic tier, then open it up to general monster races at higher tiers, but that's just my hypothesis.


I must respectfully disagree here; this isn't a failing, it's a limitation.

A failure occurs when a game sets out to accomplish a certain task, and does not meet that task. The set goal for 4e was in-party balance and simplified combat. Allowing characters to fly indefinitely was never a design goal of the system.

Is it a limitation? Yes. There are other systems that have less of a limitation on flying. But given as limiting the versatility of flying was part of their goal in establishing party balance, this isn't a failing. They accomplished what they set out to do, which is to bring the wizard back into line and parity with the rest of the party, rather than standing out as incomparably powerful.

Respectfully I must put forth that this is glass half empty/half full difference of perspective. I expected that 4e would at least be able to cover the ground of it's predecessor adequately as an open ended fantasy RPG. Thus I see it's inability to handle numerous fantasy races (any that could fly) as a failure. When you compare it to other systems that do have systems that allow for flight, you see it's lack in 4e as a limitation. So we're both correct, IMO, but looking at the issue differently.

nepphi
2008-06-10, 01:26 PM
If you want to look at it that way, that's your prerogative of course. I would argue that 4e never promised to handle flight (or anything) in the same manner as 3e or other games, and thus using your expectations to justify success or failure is erroneous.

That said, I shall tip my hat and move on, points having been politely made and all.

Tokiko Mima
2008-06-10, 01:40 PM
If your argument is based on an assumption, isn't it nicer to state it before you proceed? I think most of us that have dinked around with the 3ed rules have already realized that Tokiko's problem here is 4ed's lack of congruency with 3ed LAs and racial HD.
Tokiko, how about subbing in a Levitate-like power until flight is a reasonable option? (You could even make it non-magical.) That way, you're still flying, just not mobile enough that the DM has to revise their tactics.
~Joe

I've only just taken a glance or two at someone elses 4e rules, so I'm mostly taking everyone at their word when they say something is part of 4e. Wouldn't levitate allow for the same 'nuke from safety' type of attacks? come to think of it, a spiderwalk style ability would do the same thing, but more situationally.

What 4e needs is a low level way for everyone (PCs and monsters alike) to deal with flyers, whether that be magic abilities to fly themselves, neutralize their flight, or ranged abilities that deal out more punishment if they hit something flying. It needs to operate on the assumption that players will get their grubby little mitts on abilities like flight, despite their apparent lack in the core books. It's too good of an ability not to be exploited.


PS - It really doesn't surprise me that we've yet to see rules for playing monsters. Balance is a big priority on the 4ed to-do list (if Wizards' press releases are taken at face value) so I don't think they're just going to slap some rules-of-thumb and hope for the best. Wizards is very conscious of internet communities like ours now. Back in 3ed development, I don't think anyone ever asked the question, "What happens if someone finds an exploitable loophole and disseminates it near-effortlessly to tens of thousands of optimization-obsessed players via a highly accessible worldwide information network?" Times change - they know, for one, that there will be homebrew solutions available in every flavor conceivable. They also know that anything officially published as a rule becomes ammunition for folks who are concerned with the soundness of RAW without DM arbitration. 4ed does seem a lot nerfy-er than 3ed, but why is anyone surprised? Take a look at the "Ask Wizards" columns and then tell me how the vocal part of the community wasn't just begging for it.

Right. I was really looking forward to WotC making good on their 4e 'No LA. No ECL' promises, but the way they have gone about it seems like the wrong one.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-10, 01:52 PM
If your argument is based on an assumption, isn't it nicer to state it before you proceed?

What unstated assumption is my argument based upon exactly?


It really doesn't surprise me that we've yet to see rules for playing monsters.

Please note that we have seen rules for playing some 16 monsters. The ones that have not been addressed are the ones that are not reasonably going to be playable at level 1 without stripping them of their more distincitive and powerful abilities.


4ed does seem a lot nerfy-er than 3ed, but why is anyone surprised? Take a look at the "Ask Wizards" columns and then tell me how the vocal part of the community wasn't just begging for it.

I'm also unsure why this is considered a universally bad thing by some.


I don't see how it makes much difference how they manage to fly, magically or not, unless there's a lot of anti-magic fields around every PC.

It makes a difference thematically. If you have a world where few things fly and all under their own power, that world looks one way (sort of like ours). If you have another where things fly frequently and by magic, that world looks another way (less like ours).


The fact that they (the monsters) can and the PCs can't is a disparity in and of itself. It means that if the PCs somehow manage to play a low level monster race (via the 4e equivalent of an awakened hawk, splat book, plot item, etc.) that they will be granted a huge advantage just by virtue of the system assuming that low level PC's can't fly. 4e is building in a weakness that will be inherent to the system, and require quite a bit to work around.

I don't really think so. The Githyanki have a one round flight effect as a racial power, for example. But note, Awaken thus far does not exist in 4e (much to my dismay for other reasons). If the designers of the game design it with the notion in mind that low level characters won't have particular options, and splat books continue with that trend, then there isn't a problem with the system. If someone homebrew's something that unbalances the system, that's not the fault of the system.



Yes, but the problem here is the 4e is set up to be broken the moment a PC could fly at low levels, and pixies obviously fly and are relatively weak monsters.

We don't know that is true in 4e. For example, troglydites used to be level 1 pansies. Now they range from level 6 - 12. Lamia used to be lame level 6 lion-person things. Now they are cool level 12 Elite scarab beetle fey.


So if at some later point they are statted, mechanics themselves would limit pixies from PC play (or force the same level adjustment nonsense you didn't like.) I'm guessing they will just allow certain humanoid races only for the heroic tier, then open it up to general monster races at higher tiers, but that's just my hypothesis.

It's possible. Or it's also possible that they will get a progression of powers that they can improve with various feats. If they, say, had no stat bonuses and got the gnomes 'invisible when hit' ability and the Githyanki sort of fly for a round ability with taking a feat or something and then were able to improve upon them with Paragon Epic feats it could work.

The thing is that they wouldn't be able to fly and be invisible at first level.


I expected that 4e would at least be able to cover the ground of it's predecessor adequately as an open ended fantasy RPG.

It may still. Remember 4e had years of splatbooks and internet discussion/homebrew to make it more capable of accomidating that kind of play.


Thus I see it's inability to handle numerous fantasy races (any that could fly) as a failure.

It failed to do this for race playable from level one. Then again, so did 3.5 core.

Gypsy0001
2008-06-10, 01:55 PM
TOKIKO!

MIMA!

When are you getting your books? I ordered mine late and now they're out of stuck but they come on the 16th.

We need to get another PbP going since MadLarper's died.

Aquillion
2008-06-10, 02:24 PM
They should make a Paragon Path for a wizard who devotes themselves to researching magical flight. You can be the Wright Brothers of your day. Of course, you wouldn't get full and complete fly-all-the-time abilities until level 20... by which point it wouldn't be that unbalancing. Your other abilities would be things to support flight, grant it to others, perhaps anti-air and air-superiority powers...

I think that dividing up monsters by tier is a very good idea. Pixies and some other things are Paragon tier for various reasons. Dragons would be epic tier. To use a race, you have to be starting the game at that tier. Some races (Dragons) would require that you give up some of your earlier abilities / feats / whatever, too (perhaps there would be a 'draconic' paragon path that you'd be required to have taken to be a dragon, or various feats.) Others, like Pixies, are probably more or less balanced at their levels... a level 11 flying-all-the-time pixie is powerful, but not overwhelmingly so if they're balanced with other things.

Also, a pixie doesn't have to be able to fly all the time. Make their flight an encounter power that has to be sustained with minor actions -- it's tiring and requires that they devote energy to it. Heck, it could even require standard actions to sustain, and make it low-speed. Then, have a feat chain that will slowly remove these restrictions -- increasing the speed, reducing the sustain to a minor action and then eliminating it, adding extra uses per encounter and finally letting you fly all the time. In other words, yes, you can be a pixie warlock or ranger, but it requires specific training beyond your basic class abilities to use them effectively while flying.

clericwithnogod
2008-06-10, 02:39 PM
"Not supposed to?" What does that mean? I'm aware that 4e is an entirely new system and direct conversion is not possible but you'll have to explain to me why "creating characters of certain races is impossible by design" is a good idea for a broad fantasy simulation. It's rather short-sighted, IMO.


"Not supposed to" isn't accurate. More accurately, direct conversions won't work in a lot, if not most cases, and some things won't work at all. This is why they didn't put out a conversion guide and don't recommend trying to make conversions - though some WotC staffers posted information about conversions they made for their characters or that players in their groups made.

A lot of stuff is too different. Your Pixie, like some people's Druids most likely, looks like it's may not transfer well, if at all. Which is unfortunate, because I thought my favorite character wasn't going to work based upon some of the preview stuff, and it made me pretty unhappy, so I think I can understand how you're feeling. I'd like things to have been a bit more flexible, because I play with people that like some of the things that won't (or likely won't) be possible now and I'd like them to be able to play the character they want to play too. Other people's unusual races or animal shapes and/or their animal companions/familiars let me interact with something other than the elf wizard and dwarf fighter, so there's some self interest as well.

One thing I could see them try out at some point is making a race that flies, but can't take a standard action while doing so, similar to the Warlock power. A Pixie that flits around, but doesn't flit around chucking fireballs or whatever, might be more balanced within the confines of the 4e rules.

Crow
2008-06-10, 02:40 PM
Well one of things that made flight really powerful for wizards was Wind Wall, which made some ranged attacks nearly meaningless. I haven't found a comparable power yet. So far it looks like a guy with a bow could pluck wizards from the sky all day long.

webgem
2008-06-10, 02:43 PM
I don't have the rules memorized by any means yet, but the encounter distance seems a lot shorter than in 3.0/3.5 as well, meaning perhaps that ranged weapons will be more effective against fliers?

Also, if you want certain things to be more powerful, you could make fly an encounter power rather than a daily power. 4.0 seems to have a lot of the really cool 3.0/3.5 stuff simply be more limited. To me this feels just like it starts off at a lower magic thresh hold than before, but can be bumped up. Just like in 3.0/3.5 there was a high magic default almost, but you could tone things down if you wanted to.

clericwithnogod
2008-06-10, 02:47 PM
I don't have the rules memorized by any means yet, but the encounter distance seems a lot shorter than in 3.0/3.5 as well, meaning perhaps that ranged weapons will be more effective against fliers?

Add to that the fact that using a ranged weapon isn't quite as comparatively useless if you don't spend a ton of resources building it up, factor in the minion rules and figure an altitude limit on a lot of the flight powers and they probably will be.

hamishspence
2008-06-10, 02:48 PM
or use the type of flight that requires you to land at end of move, at least at low level. Fey step doesn't unbalance eladrin, bouncing 5 squares wouldn't unbalance pixies.

Aquillion
2008-06-10, 02:56 PM
Anyway, here's an idea for pixie flying if you want to start as a pixie at level 1. Now, note, there is going to have to be some balance here -- primarily, if you want to start as a creature at level 1, you have to come up with an explanation for why your abilities are more limited. For instance, a pixie could have been raised with their race (and wings) hidden for much of their life, and therefore have little experience with flying when the adventure begins.

With that said, level 1 pixies would start with the following ability:

Pixie Flight, Pixie racial power
Encounter - Flight.
Standard Action. Personal.
Effect: You gain a flight speed of 5 until the end of your turn; this speed cannot be increased by any other effect or action. If you are still in the air when the effect ends, you fall. Even if you somehow gain multiple move actions in a turn, you cannot use more than one of them for the flight you gain from this ability.

Obviously, this is based on the Eladrin racial teleportation ability (the most important part is the '5-spaces per encounter' bit to start with). In fact, it's even weaker, since it requires a standard action -- that might not be necessary, but I wanted to err on the side of caution. Easy to fix it later. Note that if you're worried about people using this to bypass challenges -- Eladrin can do the exact same thing, and they're core. The above power may be underpowered, but it is definitely not overpowered for a level 1 PC, since Eladrin get something almost strictly superior.

Next is a set of feats. These would have level requirements, and suggestions for what levels would be appropriate would be good. Some may seem to make others obsolete; these will naturally have all the ones they 'replace' as prerequisites. Existing classes that get similar abilities are noted in parenthesis with their level; they usually get it as daily and not per encounter, but remember, they're not spending a ton of feats and their race on it, either.

* Change action required to activate your flight from a standard action to a minor action (remember, they still have to actually use a move action to fly.) (Eladrin 1 -- this might just be an innate part of pixie flight because of this).

* Add an additional per-encounter use of your racial fly ability.

* Sustain your flight as a standard action. This also removes the restrictions on increasing your flight speed via other means or taking multiple moves if you can get them -- the main purpose of that restriction was to keep you within the Eladrin teleportation limit for outside-of-combat navigation, and this removes that limit anyway. (Warlock 10, roughly.)

* Sustain your flight as a minor action. (Wizard 16)

* Pixie flight speed +3 (To 8 -- matches Wizard 16, and most other flying abilites)

* Sustain your flight as a free action (Cleric 22 -- you can fly indefinitely now.)

Additional feats (further speed increases, say, or a hover speed, or whatever) could also be added. Further prequisites could be inserted (more incremental speed increases, maybe start their speed lower and require a +1 speed before anything else, presumed to be taken at level one), if people think this is too cheap.

Note that while sustaining your flight as a standard action is something 'normal' pixies should be able to do (and at about a level 10 ability, it is perfect for a race intended to be 'Paragon-tier' focused), I would again argue that sustaining as a minor action is something only more 'elite' trained pixies would necessarily have -- most pixies would require special training to be able to fly and fire a bow at the same time, say.

What do people think? Suggestions? Comments?

Tokiko Mima
2008-06-10, 03:10 PM
They should make a Paragon Path for a wizard who devotes themselves to researching magical flight. You can be the Wright Brothers of your day. Of course, you wouldn't get full and complete fly-all-the-time abilities until level 20... by which point it wouldn't be that unbalancing. Your other abilities would be things to support flight, grant it to others, perhaps anti-air and air-superiority powers...

I think that dividing up monsters by tier is a very good idea. Pixies and some other things are Paragon tier for various reasons. Dragons would be epic tier. To use a race, you have to be starting the game at that tier. Some races (Dragons) would require that you give up some of your earlier abilities / feats / whatever, too (perhaps there would be a 'draconic' paragon path that you'd be required to have taken to be a dragon, or various feats.) Others, like Pixies, are probably more or less balanced at their levels... a level 11 flying-all-the-time pixie is powerful, but not overwhelmingly so if they're balanced with other things.

Agreed. Even in 3.5 Pixies couldn't really be played till 5th level. I've always felt that LA should count only against starting level. That way high LA monsters didn't interfere with low level play, but monster PC's weren't penalized with a huge ECL XP anchor.


Also, a pixie doesn't have to be able to fly all the time. Make their flight an encounter power that has to be sustained with minor actions -- it's tiring and requires that they devote energy to it. Heck, it could even require standard actions to sustain, and make it low-speed. Then, have a feat chain that will slowly remove these restrictions -- increasing the speed, reducing the sustain to a minor action and then eliminating it, adding extra uses per encounter and finally letting you fly all the time. In other words, yes, you can be a pixie warlock or ranger, but it requires specific training beyond your basic class abilities to use them effectively while flying.

I don't know how it would work as an encounter power (it's more an @will thing, since they always have wings), but other than that it sounds like a fine solution.


or use the type of flight that requires you to land at end of move, at least at low level. Fey step doesn't unbalance eladrin, bouncing 5 squares wouldn't unbalance pixies.

I dunno about this. I really don't see pixies flying for 6 seconds, then landing, flying for 6 seconds, then landing. It seems thematically wrong. Fey Step is like a leap, but Pixies aren't grasshoppers and they aren't teleporting either.


TOKIKO!

MIMA!

Hiya Gypsy! :smile:

Aquillion
2008-06-10, 03:29 PM
I don't know how it would work as an encounter power (it's more an @will thing, since they always have wings), but other than that it sounds like a fine solution.Well, for most encounter powers, exhaustion is assumed to be a factor -- after a flight, a pixie needs time to rest, catch their breath, etc. Unless they're very experienced at flying under stressful situations, anyway.


I dunno about this. I really don't see pixies flying for 6 seconds, then landing, flying for 6 seconds, then landing. It seems thematically wrong. Fey Step is like a leap, but Pixies aren't grasshoppers and they aren't teleporting either.Well, this would come down to what I suggested above -- if someone wants to play a pixie at level 1, they're going to have to understand that their abilities will require at least a temporary nerf, and come up with an explaination for it ('raised outside of pixie society with their wings hidden, has no experience with flight before the adventure starts' is a good one.) At higher levels, of course, that restriction can be removed (level 10 seems to be the breaking point for encounter-long flight.)

NephandiMan
2008-06-10, 03:32 PM
Wow, this thread was derailed with strawmen and ad hominem arguments on the very first page. I wonder if that's a record.

In line with the OP's second goal - recommending useful wizard powers - I have a question for anyone who's played a 4e wizard, or been in a party with one: does Magic Missile strike you as more useful than Cloud of Daggers, or vice versa? I have Thunderwave as a Fortitude at-will attack, so now I'm trying to decide on the Reflex one. And since I'm interested in a controller-type wizard, I'm all about status ailments, which excludes Scorching Burst.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-10, 03:53 PM
Wow, this thread was derailed with strawmen and ad hominem arguments on the very first page. I wonder if that's a record.

In line with the OP's second goal - recommending useful wizard powers - I have a question for anyone who's played a 4e wizard, or been in a party with one: does Magic Missile strike you as more useful than Cloud of Daggers, or vice versa? I have Thunderwave as a Fortitude at-will attack, so now I'm trying to decide on the Reflex one. And since I'm interested in a controller-type wizard, I'm all about status ailments, which excludes Scorching Burst.


I've played a wizard a few times now, it's a tough pick bettween the two. Truthfully, I hardly ever used either. Thunderwave and my encounter/daily powers tended to see me through the battle. Basically, it boils down to if you want to auto kill a minion / autodamage a bad guy or be able to plunk someone from 20 squares away. Personally, I'd take MM, just so you can smack fleeing folks in the back.

seedjar
2008-06-10, 06:03 PM
2. Providing playable monster races for monsters that have a signifigant advantage over PC's (such as flight).

...

Regarding 2, can we all admit that the 3.x mechanics for making playable monster races in Core sucked? The few races they have released in the MM seem to function a heck of a lot better than than their 3.x counterparts. Is it perhaps a problem that what were high LA creatures in 3x are not yet playable? Maybe, but we don't yet have a 4e equivalent of Savage Species. We might get one.

...

At very high LA with racial HD. The only times it became remotley possible to practically play a dragon by RAW was toward the very end of the 3.5 run, if then. All of the playable races from the MM thus far released in 4e have been playable from level 1. Dragons have never, ever, been playable from level 1. Some races have too many built in adavantages to reasonably be playable with their powers from level one. It might be that pixies will be relased at sompoint as a playable race, but I'll bet huge stacks of something valuable that they won't have the ability to fly (or no more than the Gith's do) at level 1, nor should they. Negotiating that with class levels, in order to keep the party on the same footing mechanically, is no easy task.

Sorry, that was a little snippy on my part. I'm in a bit of a mood today as I've spent most of the last 48 hours vacuuming up "odorous house ants" (odorous is right) that have been attracted by the rotting produce my roommate likes to leave on the kitchen counter.
I think I jumped on your response specifically in reaction to a more general trend in the argument - looking back I think I mistook Xefas' post to which Albatross responded as your own. We're probably closer to agreement than I thought. The assumption to which I was referring is the notion that first-level monsters are comparable to first-level PCs. This isn't the case without LA and ECL, through which it becomes apparent that 3.5 flyers aren't typically available at level 1, unless you want to take something with minimal combat ability like an animal. (I may be mistaken, but if so there certainly aren't many exceptions.) In any case, I think it's faulty logic to criticize Tokiko's objection on the grounds that nothing else at level one flies, because the build she was talking about doesn't actually start at level one.
Sorry for jumping the gun.
~Joe

seedjar
2008-06-10, 06:15 PM
I've only just taken a glance or two at someone elses 4e rules, so I'm mostly taking everyone at their word when they say something is part of 4e. Wouldn't levitate allow for the same 'nuke from safety' type of attacks? come to think of it, a spiderwalk style ability would do the same thing, but more situationally.

No, what I mean is that your feet don't touch the ground when you walk. You can "fly" just high enough to grab the top of an obstacle you couldn't quite jump, but that's it. You're more suspect to wind, less to tripping (which would be more like grabbing you and throwing you to the ground.) Levitate probably wasn't the spell/power I had in mind. Remember Magus from Chrono Trigger? Like that. Add a racial feat or something that gives real flight later on and you're golden.


What 4e needs is a low level way for everyone (PCs and monsters alike) to deal with flyers, whether that be magic abilities to fly themselves, neutralize their flight, or ranged abilities that deal out more punishment if they hit something flying. It needs to operate on the assumption that players will get their grubby little mitts on abilities like flight, despite their apparent lack in the core books. It's too good of an ability not to be exploited.

Slingshot?
~Joe

NephandiMan
2008-06-10, 08:32 PM
Thank you, AKA Bait. I didn't think about that aspect of it, but you're right - it would be nice to have a reliable way to hit fleeing enemies.

The next question, then, is whether to take Cloud of Daggers or Ray of Frost as the extra at-will spell for human wizards.

Tough_Tonka
2008-06-10, 10:09 PM
1st level dragons. Draconomicon sadly did not do them. Dragon mag did (both chromatic, and metallic). Works like Savage Species. Which is not very popular. But, if you had Dragon mag issues 320 or 332, and a friendly DM, you could play a dragon from 1st level.

Yeah, but you couldn't fly until 5+ levels later. You just got claws some stat bonuses a few abilities (sometimes not even dragon's breath). The gold dragon could work out okay but most of the other versions weren't really that good.

Tough_Tonka
2008-06-10, 10:17 PM
I have mixed feelings about the Thunder Wave power. On the one hand I can't denyk how useful it is for a at-will power, but since its vs the fort def (one the best defenses for most monsters) it probably only going to have a good chance of success on lightweight NPCs and artillery monsters.

wodan46
2008-06-10, 10:35 PM
Ray of Frost slows down enemies, but it works best on those with low fortitudes, who are most likely ranged. Thunderwave and Wall of Daggers are good picks if you have good Wisdom (though the latter only needs +1 to autokill minions), while Scorching Burst and Magic Missile work best if you don't have good Wisdom, or prefer longer range combat.

Kompera
2008-06-11, 02:45 AM
Agreed. Even in 3.5 Pixies couldn't really be played till 5th level.
And then they broke the game. You called Xefas' example a strawman, but it was pretty much spot on, he just used the wrong examples to get his points across.

So here's an example using Pixies from 3.5. Here are their abilities as players:
Pixies As Characters

A pixie character exchanges its 1 HD of fey for its first class level.

Pixie characters possess the following racial traits.

* -4 Strength, +8 Dexterity, +6 Intelligence, +4 Wisdom, +6 Charisma.
* Small size. +1 bonus to Armor Class, +1 bonus on attack rolls, +4 bonus on Hide checks, -4 penalty on grapple checks, lifting and carrying limits ¾ those of Medium characters.
* A pixie’s base land speed is 20 feet. It also has a fly speed of 60 feet (good).
* Low-light vision.
* Skills: Pixies have a +2 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks.
* Racial Feats: A pixie receives Dodge and Weapon Finesse as bonus feats.
* +1 natural armor bonus.
* Special Attacks (see above): Spell-like abilities.
* Special Qualities (see above): Damage reduction 10/cold iron, greater invisibility, spell resistance equal to 15 + class levels.
* Automatic Languages: Common, Sylvan. Bonus Languages: Elven, Gnome, Halfling.
* Favored Class: Sorcerer.
* Level adjustment +4 (+6 if the pixie can use irresistible dance).

And the (see above) abilities are:
Greater Invisibility (Su)

A pixie remains invisible even when it attacks. This ability is constant, but the pixie can suppress or resume it as a free action.
Spell-Like Abilities

1/day—lesser confusion (DC 14), dancing lights, detect chaos, detect good, detect evil, detect law, detect thoughts (DC 15), dispel magic, entangle (DC 14), permanent image (DC 19; visual and auditory elements only). Caster level 8th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.

Let's assume class level of 5. So LA 4, +5 CL = 9th. A party of 4 Pixies, of various classes, just like any other D&D adventuring group.

In any overland encounter where the other side does not have magic, they pretty much win automatically. They have greater invisibility, ignore the first 10 damage from anything other than cold iron, and have a spell resistance of 20. Plus whatever class abilities they might have. They should be able to pick off any non-magic using challenge without even being seen or suffering any return attacks. If they are seen, only ranged attacks can possibly hurt them because (dun dun duuuuun!) they are flying. And of course there was the aforementioned DR10/cold iron, and the +8 DEX giving a respectable AC bonus for even players who dump stat it. Assume a single caster able to cast Wind Wall, and there goes almost all possibilities for the party to take any damage at all.

Now assume an encounter with casters. This becomes more challenging, as a 9th level caster will have a broad array of spells which can counter some of the Pixies advantages, and the Pixies won't have as high saves or HP as a PC who has 9 class levels instead of a 4 LA and only 5 class levels.

But the Pixies still have some significant advantages. And greater invisibility and non-dispelable 60' flight means that most fights that they don't want to fight they won't have to. Entangle and run is a good option, as is lesser confusion and permanent image for facilitating this escape, plus any class abilities and magic items they may have. Saves against the Pixies daily abilities are going to be hard, as they are CHA based and they get a +6 CHA as a racial ability.

If they chose to fight, being invisible they pretty much get a surprise round in most situations. So they use an array of save or suck and/or save or lose spells against the caster(s) on the other side. Or maybe one of the Pixies is 3rd level with a 6 LA and has irresistible dance, and the enemy caster just dances until it's his turn to die while the melee types are slaughtered just as in an encounter with no casters.

Really, unless surprised by opponents who see invisible, attack on sight and have magic, the Pixies win every encounter. Even in this example if the opponents don't have some very specific special attacks, grappling, see invisible or other means to attack invisible opponents without penalty, flight of their own, etc, the Pixies just run away after taking a little damage.

This would break a 3.5 game. Against every encounter the Pixies will either dominate completely or run away from, with very little middle ground possible. The only real challenges the GM could throw at such a group would be so contrived and so obviously designed specifically as an anti-Pixie encounter, and would look nothing like a typical fantasy game's challenges. But the GM would be forced to take those steps or just hand the campaign over to the Pixies. There would be no challenge and therefore no fun for anyone.

This did break 3.5 games even when the party wasn't Pixies, and just had easy access to flight and not all of the other Pixies advantages. So it's not at all a "failure" for 4e to have left out any means to run a flying monster as a PC race, nor is it a "failure" for 4e to have removed nearly all means for players to fly via other means. It is a triumph, and a better piece of game design than I could have dared hope for from 4e.

Aquillion
2008-06-11, 03:31 AM
Well, let's keep in mind that 3.5 pixies have a lot of extra abilities and features that aren't really necessary for the pixie archtype. They don't need invisibility, and there's no particular reason why their fly speed has to be faster than walking (it could be slower, even. They're pixies, not hawks.) Sure, pixies are supposed to have magical abilities, but so are elves; that's represented by their favored class.

But even then, there are much easier ways to limit them than you're suggesting. Basically: Most fights take place indoors. There are lots of indoor areas with a ceiling within 10 feet; if you've ever actually been inside a natural cave, you're lucky to get even that much, while most pre-industrial buildings were lucky to get that height as well (when it's difficult to build, people build as little as possible -- which means low ceilings.) Almost no typical indoor area, outside of a few big rooms, is going to have a ceiling above 15 feet (within reach for many monstrous creatures, or those armed with reach weapons.)

Invisibility can help. But once the residents of a dungeon are aware of them, they can start doing things like shutting, locking, and barring doors. This makes it much more difficult to use flight as a method of escape.

Now, the greater invisibility thing is a bigger issue. But let's say that, as a PC race, they don't have that (in 4th edition terms, we'd say typical NPC encounter pixies are assumed to have non-specified magical training, which for a PC would be represented by whatever class levels they chose -- so if they want invisibility, they should take a class with a power that grants it.)

Likewise, let's say their fly speed is no faster than normal walking speed, possibly slower. Those strip out the unimportant parts of your comparison -- the things that have nothing to do with flying itself. (We'll also assume no better stat bonuses than any other PC race, and no LA or any particular penalties... although pixies are notoriously frail, so perhaps we'll assume some penalty associated with that, even if it's not a con penalty, which 4e theoretically no longer has. It's a fair tradeoff for flight, and lets them be threatened by archers that their party members might not have to worry about.)

Moderate-speed flight, indoors, in a dungeon with 10-foot-high ceilings is not a particularly amazing advantage. Even in a dungeon with 15-foot-high ceilings it can be nullified by organized opponents (who live there and are likely to know where the armory is so they can call for polearms as needed.) If the PCs catch some opponents in an open space, those opponents can themselves withdraw -- and if the PCs try to follow, they can be ambushed in doorways, where their frail pixie bodies could easily absorb multiple attacks if they're too reckless. If the enemies withdraw successfully, they can go get ranged weapons, bring in whatever specific support they have, etc.

Likewise, most dungeons are going to have chokepoints that will be well-defended as soon as the alarm is raised. Flying, by definition, is not going to to be much of an advantage in most chokepoints, especially if the crafters of the dungeon took flying in mind when establishing their defenses (likely, in a world where it is common.)

Flying will still be an advantage, of course -- most dungeons are going to have open areas the PCs can try and lure the enemy into, say. But it doesn't have to be as overwhelming as you're saying.

Unintelligent opponents can be more problematic, and there are some that can be easily beaten by flying in an open space -- but the enviroment you choose for an encounter is always a consideration with unintelligent opponents, since they won't be smart enough to do anything about it once the fight starts.

You cannot beat intelligent PCs in 3.5 simply by throwing mindless chunks of HP with stats attached to them at the party in endless waves, but this is true about everything in 3.5. You can, though, have well-played intelligent NPCs fight back effectively against when on their own turf (what we would traditionally call a "dungeon").

This isn't some obscure trick or bizarre magical anti-fairy field. The name of the game is "Dungeons and dragons", not "Wide featureless open fields and dragons". You play a smart dungeon, not merely smart monsters, and PCs will be forced to stretch their imaginations and come up with new strategies and uses for their abilities to counter it -- not just using the same tired flying or 3d6 damage or whatever as they can in a more lazy world.

This is the sort of thing that many people are saying they miss in 4th edition. In 3.5, there was often a sense of challenges being puzzles -- situations where the ability of PCs and NPCs to intelligently use their environment and abilities to nullify the abilities and tactics of each other was more important than your stats, the number of dice you rolled, and so forth. Yes, many people complained that different classes had different abilities to participate in this 'clockwork puzzle system', but it was what many people enjoyed most about the game.

4th edition took this intricate clockwork puzzle system, carefully opened it up, and smashed all the gears into a fine paste with a big iron hammer. I do not mean to say that strategy and planning are not there, of course -- but they are strictly secondary, acting as (at best) modifiers to the effectiveness of the raw straightforward damage-dealing and damage-soaking capability that forms the core of every party's success and failure. If you plan well, you may get off a few extra d6's where it hurts most, on the enemy artillery, or avoid taking those own hits to your artillery yourself.

In 3.5, though, strategy could easily be the entire game. If PCs were smart against a poorly-planned encounter, they could easily slaughter something that was, on paper, massively more powerful than themselves with little fight at all; conversely, a well-planned encounter with intelligent opponents who use the environment to their advantage could easily slaughter a party of stupid PCs that were, on paper, high enough level to turn them into a cakewalk.

Those things are not supposed to happen in 4th edition; in fact, a great deal of the system has been designed to prevent them. In order to prevent PCs from 'outwitting' encounters -- or being slaughtered by them -- the importance of your d6s, your HP and stats and level and so forth have all by necessity been vastly increased, while the significence of planning and strategy has been vastly decreased. This is the "MMORPG sensibility" that people keep talking about -- if the PCs grinded up to the level necessary to be the monster, they'll beat it, and if not, they won't. Sure, their strategy makes a difference, but now strategy is strictly a way of applying those numerical powers more or less effectively... it doesn't dominate them the way it once did.

Is this a bad thing? It's a tradeoff. Having those intricate clockwork puzzles in the game could easily allow newbie DMs to create accidental traps either for themselves (by failing to take PC abilities into account, and -- more importantly -- playing the NPCs as inexplicably failing to take abilities standard to their world into account, in things like dungeon design and so forth), or traps for their PCs (by accidently giving the NPCs more advantages than they intended.) It also makes the classes much easier to balance -- it's quite difficult to balance abilities for the 'puzzle combat' of 3.5, but very easy to balance them for 4th edition's more pure wargaming model.

But I think something has also been lost.

Sebastian
2008-06-11, 03:52 AM
They took away ECL and Level Adjustments... so, for a Pixie... let's see...

You wouldn't be able to wield 2 handed, versatile or heavy blades. You would be limited to light blades... maybe heavy blades in 2 hands. (keep you in line with the halflings not being able to wield two handed weapons and only versatile weapons in 2 hands) +2 Dex and +2 Cha. +2 Stealth and +2 Bluff. Encounter power... Turn invisible until the end of your next turn. If you make an attack, the invisibility ends.

That'd be as close to a pixie as you'd get. If you added in flight, it would be unbalancing to the races currently offered as monster races.

What is the point to play a pixie than can't fly?
It is like playing a troll without regeneration, or human sized giant. At this point just play a human, call it pixie, or elf or dwarf and "roleplay it" which IMHO is what 4e did with most races, a bonus to a couple of stat/skills and one encounter power do not a race does.

Abotu the pixie:
What I would do is make Fly the encounter power, last one encounter or for five minutes, minor action to sustain, and limit it in how high it can fly (5 squares probably,, how much is a square again?) so they would still be in the range of ranged attacks and powers. Also, you can't fly if you are Bloodied.

They would be smaller than small size, I'd limit them even more in the weapon used, only light blades and must use two hands for them (or do you really think that a pencil sized mace could hurt someone?), they can use only light armors and no shields, or maybe they can wear heavy armor but they can't fly in it. Yes, playing a fighter pixie would probably sucks, anyone is really surprised at that?
I'd give them a strenght and/or Con penalty, but apparently to give penalties to races is a kind of blasphemy in 4e.
Some equipment (i.e. armors, pixie sized implements, etc) should be custom-made and a little more expensive, but this and other things are left as an exercise to the gm imagination.

D&D is still a fantasy roleplaying game, this mean I should be able to roleplay fantasy races with it, i.e. races that can do things that humans can't do, like flying.
If a game can't do it, or even worse, choose to not even try to do it, then it fails.
IMHO, of course.

Ceiling009
2008-06-11, 03:55 AM
I think we should probably homebrew the Pixies... I think the flight problem can easily be fixed.

seedjar
2008-06-11, 04:00 AM
I dunno about this. I really don't see pixies flying for 6 seconds, then landing, flying for 6 seconds, then landing. It seems thematically wrong. Fey Step is like a leap, but Pixies aren't grasshoppers and they aren't teleporting either.

I kind of like it. It reminds me of Bee Mario. No saying you couldn't make something to trade up to, either. It might not quite match, but I don't think you can find a fair type of 1st-level flight unless you address the death-from-above exploit. If you place them in the paragon tier, why even worry about it? Just give them a fly speed.
~Joe

Sebastian
2008-06-11, 04:40 AM
I think comparisons with 3.5 pixies are not really appropriate. There are too many things that works differently from the two version to even make the comparison possible.

A problem in making races with unusual powers like the pixie in 4e is the absence of penalties for races, even a fly at will could be easily balanced by some appropriate (and flavourful) malus, like a -2 on poison based saving throws, or a "lightweight" feature, "when subjected to forced movement you are moved one extra square.", or other things like that, but they don't seems to be acceptable in 4e.

NephandiMan
2008-06-11, 04:41 AM
@Tough_Tonka: Good point about Thunderwave. Of course, lightweight NPCs are the ones who are most likely to appear in large numbers, which means they're the ones most likely to require AoE. As for artillery, that's what Fey Step is for. :smallbiggrin:

@wodan46: While I do prefer long-range combat, I'll be keeping my Wisdom high to make sure that Thunderwave throws back enemies who manage to get close (and to boost the orb implement's save penalty).

Kompera
2008-06-11, 07:47 AM
Likewise, most dungeons are going to have chokepoints that will be well-defended as soon as the alarm is raised. Flying, by definition, is not going to to be much of an advantage in most chokepoints, especially if the crafters of the dungeon took flying in mind when establishing their defenses (likely, in a world where it is common.)

[snippage]

In 3.5, though, strategy could easily be the entire game. If PCs were smart against a poorly-planned encounter, they could easily slaughter something that was, on paper, massively more powerful than themselves with little fight at all;
So on the one hand you've got a dungeon designer who accounts for flying opponents, because, you know, they exist and all.

And on the other hand you've got a poorly planned encounter that the PCs might walk all over.

Quite convenient. If every dungeon designer is smart enough and rich enough to be able to build in the extra measures needed to handily counter the Pixie party, then why are there any encounters so stupid as to allow a weaker party to defeat them?

The Pixies are going to walk all over the game. They don't ever have to go inside anything if they don't want to. I emphasized several times that with their advantages the Pixies choose where and when to fight. It would be extremely difficult to force them to enter into any fight which they were not ready and willing to enter into. Why be railroaded into a dungeon or similar enclosed space when you can win every fight in the great outdoors? If suddenly there are no monsters outdoors to fight, we'll know why. The GM will have grown tired of seeing the Pixie party earn essentially free EXP and treasure, and will have been forced to alter his campaign to force them to seek their EXP and adventure elsewhere. At which time the Pixie party will have won the game. If they so chose they can simply begin preying upon humanoids. If those suddenly only live underground, they can attack Humans. Humans have cities and towns, and merchant caravans should be trivially easy for the Pixies to ambush and slaughter.

It's not so easy as "Hey, it's called Dungeons and Dragons, so the Pixies won't be that bad to handle in the game." It is that bad. It's worse than that bad. You just haven't thought about it enough to come to that realization. The Pixies hold every card, the GM holds none except for the possibility of highly contrived and patently rigged encounters.

Sebastian
2008-06-11, 09:31 AM
So on the one hand you've got a dungeon designer who accounts for flying opponents, because, you know, they exist and all.

And on the other hand you've got a poorly planned encounter that the PCs might walk all over.

Quite convenient. If every dungeon designer is smart enough and rich enough to be able to build in the extra measures needed to handily counter the Pixie party, then why are there any encounters so stupid as to allow a weaker party to defeat them?


because not all dungeon designers are equally smart
Some dungeon, or encounter are not designed at all. Intelligent monsters could be prepared for flying enemies, but i.e. a pack of wolves would not, and if faced by a flying opponent that they cannot hit they'll run away


The Pixies are going to walk all over the game. They don't ever have to go inside anything if they don't want to. I emphasized several times that with their advantages the Pixies choose where and when to fight. It would be extremely difficult to force them to enter into any fight which they were not ready and willing to enter into. Why be railroaded into a dungeon or similar enclosed space when you can win every fight in the great outdoors?
even in 4e there are easy way to avodi to make flying pixies invulnerable, the simplest is to use a limit on how high and fast they fly, amke them no faster than a walking man and unable to fly higher than 10-15 feet and that they can fly if bloodied and I believe they would be maneageble.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-11, 09:36 AM
Hmm. If were were to take the Oni (Monster Manual) as an example, their gaseous form ability gives them flight but requires a standard action to maintain it.

Perhaps the pixie gets an encounter power that gives them flight, but requires their standard action to maintain... or it takes the Minor AND move action for the turn, leaving you with only a standard.

So you can either move or attack, not both.

And there should be a altitude limit, seeing as pixies are so small and a strong wind would make flying impossible for the little insect wings.

Its POSSIBLE... I just don't know if its probable to come out of a book... more like a homebrew that needs careful testing to balance.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-11, 09:59 AM
I have mixed feelings about the Thunder Wave power. On the one hand I can't denyk how useful it is for a at-will power, but since its vs the fort def (one the best defenses for most monsters) it probably only going to have a good chance of success on lightweight NPCs and artillery monsters.

Works pretty well against minions too I've found. It's not really the wizard power you pick for damage, it's the wizard power you pick for 'get the heck away from me!' and minions are the most likley kind of critter you will need to do that to.


At this point just play a human, call it pixie, or elf or dwarf and "roleplay it" which IMHO is what 4e did with most races, a bonus to a couple of stat/skills and one encounter power do not a race does.


But... but... some stat skill differences and an encounter power is actually more of a mechanical difference bettween races playable at level one than existed in 3.x...


D&D is still a fantasy roleplaying game, this mean I should be able to roleplay fantasy races with it, i.e. races that can do things that humans can't do, like flying.
If a game can't do it, or even worse, choose to not even try to do it, then it fails.
IMHO, of course.

Things like breathing fire (dragon born)? Teleporting (Eladrin)? Please remember that there are quite a few racial powers that humans can't do. Not every monster, and probably not every monster that is going to be playable at level 1, was included in the MM1. There will be more monster manuals, perhaps pixies will be included. The fact that they were not in this particular one does not mean that 4e somehow breaks from the genre. It only means that one particular, quite specific, aspect of the genre is as of yet unrepresented.


Hmm. If were were to take the Oni (Monster Manual) as an example, their gaseous form ability gives them flight but requires a standard action to maintain it.

Note though that the Oni are not a playable race. It's a balance issue. Whatever power to simulate flying we wish to give our pixies needs to be pretty weak if we want them to be playable from level 1.


Its POSSIBLE... I just don't know if its probable to come out of a book... more like a homebrew that needs careful testing to balance.

Hard to say really. I'd bet though that if there is enough 'I want a playable pixie!' outcry over at Gleemax then you will see a playable pixie in the next MM.

If I were to homebrew this, I'd probably make Pixies the following:


RACIAL TRAITS
Average Height: 2´ 10˝–3´ 2˝
Average Weight: 55–75 lb.
Ability Scores: +2 Dexterity
Size: Small
Speed: 6 squares
Vision: Normal
Languages: Common, Elven
Skill Bonuses: +2 Acrobatics
Hummingbirds Flight: You can use Hummingbird's Flight as an encounter power.
Vanish: You can use Vanish as an encounter power.

Hummingbird's Flight Pixie Racial Power
You beat your wings furiously and hover above the ground.
Encounter
Move, Personal
Effect: You gain a fly speed equal to your movement. You can only fly up to a height of one square off the ground.
Sustain (minor): You continue to fly.

Vanish Pixie Racial Power
You vanish before the eyes of your assailant.
Encounter ✦ Illusion
Immediate Reaction Personal
Trigger:An enemy misses you with an attack.
Effect: You are invisible until you attack or until the end of your next turn.

Then I'd probably add a racial feat that allowed higher flying (say one aditional square off the ground) and more speed (say one or two additional squares) at heroic. I'd add feats to improve the invisibility at Paragon.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-11, 10:18 AM
I only mentioned the Oni because it was the first thing I thought of with sustainable flight... not as a playable race.

Your homebrew looks good, Bait.

Aquillion
2008-06-11, 01:29 PM
The Pixies are going to walk all over the game. They don't ever have to go inside anything if they don't want to. I emphasized several times that with their advantages the Pixies choose where and when to fight. It would be extremely difficult to force them to enter into any fight which they were not ready and willing to enter into. Why be railroaded into a dungeon or similar enclosed space when you can win every fight in the great outdoors? If suddenly there are no monsters outdoors to fight, we'll know why. The GM will have grown tired of seeing the Pixie party earn essentially free EXP and treasure, and will have been forced to alter his campaign to force them to seek their EXP and adventure elsewhere. At which time the Pixie party will have won the game. If they so chose they can simply begin preying upon humanoids. If those suddenly only live underground, they can attack Humans. Humans have cities and towns, and merchant caravans should be trivially easy for the Pixies to ambush and slaughter.What you're talking about here doesn't have much to do with flying or teleportation or anything like that specifically; you're saying, basically, that giving the PCs any abilities at all that are better in certain situations is broken (as long as it's combined with any abilities that make them good at running away), because you think the PCs will just choose their battles.

"These opponents aren't weak against ice, and we've all taken a lot of ice attacks. Let's drop a wall of ice and run away until the DM sends us up against something that is highly vulnerable to ice."

"Sorry, our ranger party is optimized to fight Emus. I'm using my boots of speed to run away -- screw the captive high priest, I only fight the encounters my character is optimized to fight."

By your logic, even a single point of additional movement speed (which is not that hard to get) is enough to let PCs simply walk away from a huge percentage of encounters.

No sane DM is going to let the PCs pick-and-choose every single encounter they fight. And you can't possibly have been serious when you said "If suddenly there are no monsters outdoors to fight, we'll know why." Why would there be roving bands of easy-to-spot monsters outside, constantly, armed with no ranged weapons, unhidden in an open field and waiting for the PCs to kill them and take their loot?

Most treasure is kept in dungeons. Most monsters have their bases in dungeons, and all the PCs will be able to do outside of them is skirmish with the occasional weak group of scouts (often intended to be an easy encounter anyway.)

What exactly do you envision the players doing in your theoretical game here? "Ok, we have our party, now we're going to wander around looking for any random outdoors monsters to kill."

Furthermore, how does this relate to actual gameplay? You brought up your theoretical 'all-pixie party' on the argument that it showed how flying would be broken even with just one person. But now you're arguing that the party use a crazy "troll for wandering monsters, hope they're carrying cash" strategy -- PCs as wandering muggers, basically, looking for orcs to shake down for cash. That's not something any typical party is going to want to do, especially once the DM starts dropping hints and plotlines about valuable treasures (things important to the PCs characters) underground and in the dungeons.

And as I noted, there are no "extra features" involved in making a dungeon good against flying (in fact, as I pointed out, it is more expensive to make a dungeon or building with enough room to fly in.) There will be areas where flying comes in handy, particularly in caves -- soaring galleries and the occasional chasm, pit traps (because flying isn't the only concern) and so on. But flying is hardly anywhere near as powerful as you're suggesting it to be in actual play.

Kompera
2008-06-16, 11:27 PM
No sane DM is going to let the PCs pick-and-choose every single encounter they fight.Oh? I explained in careful detail how nearly impossible it would be to prevent this party from doing just that. Will you do the same or is this just a "nuh-uh!" argument?


And you can't possibly have been serious when you said "If suddenly there are no monsters outdoors to fight, we'll know why." Why would there be roving bands of easy-to-spot monsters outside, constantly, armed with no ranged weapons, unhidden in an open field and waiting for the PCs to kill them and take their loot?

Most treasure is kept in dungeons. Most monsters have their bases in dungeons, and all the PCs will be able to do outside of them is skirmish with the occasional weak group of scouts (often intended to be an easy encounter anyway.)
In all of the games I've played over the past 10+ years, most of the game play was out of doors. Our group doesn't use the dungeon meme much, even if it is a time-honored aspect of some campaigns. If your group plays differently, then the Pixies aren't as overwhelmingly powerful in that setting. But not all groups play like yours, and the Pixie doesn't gain or lose abilities based on the campaign setting, so it needs to be balanced for all of them.


What exactly do you envision the players doing in your theoretical game here? "Ok, we have our party, now we're going to wander around looking for any random outdoors monsters to kill."
I merely explained that this was just as valid a choice for the Pixies as any other option. A lot more valid actually, given their particular strengths. What's to stop them? What incentive would they have for risking their lives in combats which did not allow them to dominate?


Furthermore, how does this relate to actual gameplay? You brought up your theoretical 'all-pixie party' on the argument that it showed how flying would be broken even with just one person. But now you're arguing that the party use a crazy "troll for wandering monsters, hope they're carrying cash" strategy -- PCs as wandering muggers, basically, looking for orcs to shake down for cash. That's not something any typical party is going to want to do, especially once the DM starts dropping hints and plotlines about valuable treasures (things important to the PCs characters) underground and in the dungeons.
Unless the campaign is on rails and all the participants like it that way, it's important that they players have some options. I merely described that this particular party composition has some enormous strengths which they would be foolish to give up, if they had any options at all. I can easily see any group of players asking themselves why indeed should they risk death to try to entertain plot hooks which did not play to their advantages, and if there are no plot hooks at all which do play to their advantages then they could make their own.