Talk:Fary (5e Race)

This race was created primarily for my wife. The objective was to make a mechanically relevant race that is statistically similar to the Monster Manual equivalents.

A note on the name: I have seen it spelled Fary, Fairie, Fairy, Farie, Faery, and Faerie. I don't care how you spell it. I don't care what the etymological origins of the word are. I don't care which culture it came from. I don't care what version of English you prefer. I prefer the spelling with the least arbitrary random extra letters. If you think it is grammatically incorrect, your understanding of English is scary.

Additionally, I would like to note that this race is not intended to have any meaningful degree of historic or cultural relevance. It is constructed almost entirely to make a playable equivalent of fary-like monsters from the monster manual. The gaps which were left open to interpretation in the MM entry were filled with a small amount of real lore and a heaping pile of horse manure of my own invention, for the simple sake of roleplayability. If you are interested in creating a mythologicaly relevant fary race which ignores the sprite and pixie entries in the MM, feel free to create a new page. You can even call it Fairy (5e Race) because I was polite enough to leave that name open. --Kydo (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2016 (MDT)

The hover speed is the average between pixies and sprites. I did not feel that a 10ft change in speed due to subrace was appropriate. I gave them a hover speed, as opposed to flight, to strongly imply that they do not need to move in order to remain aloft. This is different from the MM pixie and sprite. The main reason for this was simply genre emulation; faries are typically depicted as being able to hover, and floating through the air. The other reason was simply to be nice to my wife and any other effeminate individuals who would like to play such a race, such as young girls who may be interested in the hobby. It's a lot easier to learn when your character doesn't suddenly plummet to its death because you forgot to move 5 feet on your turn.

As for the innate spellcasting being spread out, you may wonder why I did that, even though none of the spells are higher than level 4. The main reason was option power. The more options a character has at any given time, the more powerful they are. If the pixie got all of its innate spells immediately, a level 1 PC pixie would be unusually powerful- especially if they played as a sorcerer. By spreading out those powers, it takes the edge off of that quite a bit.

Pixie dust can only be used by a pixie to cast its own innate spells. It does not work as a replacement for any and all spell components.

The sprite's poison is intended such that it can be used on other peoples weapons. Yes, you can spend a long rest applying poison to every single weapon and piece of ammunition your party owns. Yes, you can use a bonus action to apply poison to your buddy's sword if you can reach it.

Does anyone feel the sprite is underpowered? I was considering making their poison more potent or versatile as they gain levels. I was also considering giving them either resistance to poison, or the ability to make curative potions which remove poison effects. Making poltices is in their description, it just wasn't made for the monster's stat block. Giving them poison resistance would make them a little more warrior-like, while giving them medicine making powers would make them able to pull duty as a bit of a healer, even if they don't play cleric.

Is less than a pound an acceptable weight for these guys? I don't think their flight is magical, so they'd probably need to be pretty light... --Kydo (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2016 (MST)

That's a pretty solid start. 1 lb. weight is fine, I think their flight has the hint of fey magic to it. I wouldn't make the poison more powerful, they can poison any number of weapons so have multiple opportunities to inflict this. Can they poison a whole bunch of arrows? I think I'll stat out an undersized bow. If the tiny homebrew rules are being used, they can use shortbows with disadvantage. Marasmusine (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2016 (MST)

Okay, I hope that Fairy Bow (5e Equipment) and Pixie Bow (5e Equipment) will be of some use. Marasmusine (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2016 (MST)

Yes I did intend them to be able to poison a whole batch of arrows, but only if they have time, such as during a rest, otherwise they have to use a bonus action per arrow. I did this to explain why sprites use poisoned arrows, but don't poison their blades- it's faster and more practical to have a stack of poisoned arrows ready to go. You're right, stronger poison is a bad idea. The poison can be applied to every weapon in the party, so simply having a sprite in the group makes the entire party more dangerous, and this effect just gets more dramatic as the party grows in size. To represent their potion-making skills, I'm going to give them a racial proficiency with the herbalism kit. Those bows are awesome! That actually gives me an idea. My comments on that other talk page were brought on more by the way 3.5e handled scaling of weapons and armor. I misunderstood, thinking that was the intent behind the undersized weapon trait and tiny PC rules. But rescaling weapons like that actually makes no sense; tiny creatures would need to build comparatively massive structures (such as furnaces) in order to craft such items to equivalent properties, which actually makes no sense. They would more likely use materials that can be crafted more easily at their smaller scale, such as making their tiny swords from shards/splinters of stone or glass. On a smaller scale, they wouldn't need to worry as much about more brittle materials splintering or shattering, because there's less force and leverage acting upon the body of the object. (IE: In a CNC threading machine, which carves threads into the end of a steel pipe, tiny, hard, brittle, carbide alloy cutting tools are used.) Really, there could be an entire suite of armor and armaments unique to tiny people. --Kydo (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2016 (MST)

Why is there such a large gap between Pixy and Sprite? I've deleted everything between the end of pixy and the beginning of sprite, but there's still an awkward gap there... --Kydo (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2016 (MST)

Fixed it :) Marasmusine (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2016 (MST)

Thank you. I think that about sums it all up. Did a playtest with a pixy/barbarian/guild merchant and a sprite/cleric/noble knight, in DDEX1-1, and they fared about as well as any other duo of level 1 characters. Do you have any comments? Anything you'd like to add before I remove the tag? --Kydo (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2016 (MST)

Kydo do you want me to move the page back to its original title? Marasmusine (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2016 (MST)

There have been several attempts to "correct" the spelling, so I have semi-protected the page. Marasmusine (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2016 (MST)

Regarding the needsbalance template that has been added, while the race does have several traits beyond flight, it is of Tiny size which comes with several disadvantages. But what about giving the hover an altitude limit (say 10'), as the main balance issue of having flight prior to 5th level is it's superior accessibility. Marasmusine (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2016 (MDT)

Flight is not imbalanced. Anyone who says it is, is simply a lazy/uncreative DM. This has been a very, very long debate amongst DMs, especially in the D&D community. I am very firmly in the group that feels flight is a perfectly legitimate racial trait. The Aarakocra race has 50ft of flying speed, which is dramatically greater mobility than any other official race. This is why their other racial traits are limited: not just because they can fly, but because they have such a high movement ability in total. The Aarakocra was banned from AL play because flight can be extremely difficult to deal with for newbies, both as players and DMs, not because it gave any clear advantages in the AL expeditions, or in the Elemental Evil season adventure. Anyone here try playing one in those adventures? It does you no good. Most of the adventures written during that season were written with the assumption that this race was going to be available, its being banned was a later decision. The ONE instance I thought I'd found it to have a benefit actually had me getting pelted by crossbow bolts while my team was unable to help, as they were still busy climbing stairs. If you design your adventures to challenge your player group, flight doesn't change a damn thing. Being able to go farther and faster than the rest of your team does. --Kydo (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2016 (MDT)

There are plenty of DMs who have found unrestricted flight disruptive at low-levels (including editors here) and its unfair to dismiss them as "lazy"; and not every DM writes their own adventures (or does write them but without knowing in advance what the PCs are). I also did not say that flight wasn't legitimate, there are all kinds of ways of handling it. I suggested the altitude limit because I imagined fairies flitting among the trees rather than soaring high like an eagle. I also don't have an issue with it staying as it is, we have a "design disclaimer" template for exactly this. Marasmusine (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2016 (MDT)

Like I said, it's an old debate. Goes back to first edition. I said anyone who argued flight as invalid is lazy or uncreative. Nobody here argued that. No offense to that person, but I'd like to point out that I did state that the Aarakocra being banned was because newbies have trouble dealing with flight. Experience resolves that. I don't see faries soaring through the sky either- they can only travel slightly faster than a human can walk. That is a walking speed after all. But I also don't have a problem with them flying over castle walls, or up to the 13th storey window of a tower. To say they can't is ridiculous, larger insects can fly miles into the sky. --Kydo (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2016 (MDT)

I take it you're not opposed to having the design disclaimer message then? It'll just be a short message that says "Hey, heads up DM, flying PC, make sure your low-level encounters account for this." Newbie DMs will then at least know to make sure that combat encounters have an enemy with ranged attacks, etc.Marasmusine (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2016 (MDT)

No opposition whatsoever. How exactly is this template applied and used? --Kydo (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2016 (MDT)

Wow, sorry for missing this reply. The template is Template:Design Disclaimer. something like:

The DM should be aware that this race has unrestricted flight, so encounters and locations at 1st – 4th level may need adjusting.

I think I'd prefer this to be a side-box (like designer's notes) rather than a header, will suggest this at Template talk:Design Disclaimer. Marasmusine (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2016 (MDT)

I agree, my disclaimer is quite lengthy and reads more like a sidebar anyways. I dislike the disclainer's assumption that this race is "outside of guidelines" and "needs balancing". If that's the case, why not use the needs balance template? This race dies not go outside the precedent of 5e, nor is it imbalanced. --Kydo (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2016 (MDT)

Pixie spells

The Pixie's Innate Spellcasting ability lets it cast various spells of 1st level and higher. Do these have a limit on how many times per day/rest they can be used? Or do they merely increase the list of spells an already spellcasting Pixie can cast? I'm inclined to believe the former, considering the MM Pixie can only cast each 1/day (including the cantrip Dancing Lights) except for Druidcraft, which is at will.--Dorlon (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)