Pseudodragon as a PC Race? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Pseudodragon as a PC Race? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JellyPooga
07-18-07, 03:17 PM Title says it all really...how viable and/or disruptive to a game is playing a Pseudodragon as a Player Character race? Just after some opinions really. I know that the LA listed is recommended for a cohort (though my copy of the MM doesn't say as much; it just lists a +3 LA) and the advancement entry doesn't say "by character class", but I don't see why a Pseudodragon couldn't make for a good Player Character.

Personally, I don't see any overbearing problems...although they're a +3 LA, unlike some of the mid-range LA races (as in "over +2 but under +7"), they're not equipped with any particularly game-breaking abilities (like a Pixies Greater Invisibility ability) that I can see. Is there something I've missed? Here's some of the more prominent features that could be considered problems:

1)About the most difficult thing, for the DM to adjudicate/compensate for, is the fact that they have a fly speed (and a pretty good one too), but as far as I'm concerned, the usefulness of that is limited and balanced by the fact that they are Tiny and have (on average) a -4 modifier to Str (in relation to the Human average). This means that they can't do many things that a medium, average strength score dude could if given a fly speed (Tiny + (-4 Strength) = very low carrying capacity). Given the +5 ECL (+3 LA, 2 Racial HD), having a Fly speed just means that a Pseudodragon has a slightly better survivability (i.e. he can stay out of harms way, for the most part).

2)Poison. Potentially very powerful, but the DC is quite low (unless you pump Con or burn feats to raise it) and the damage is only sleep anyway. Must be delivered through Sting, which has pitiful damage too.

3)Tiny size but 5ft reach. one of the limiting factors of being Tiny is the lack of reach. Pseudodragons do not suffer from this, but only with their rather pitiful Sting attack. About the only "problem" I can see with this is if the DM decides to allow touch attack spells through his tail sting. On the other hand a PD spellcaster is 5 levels beind ECL...whilst other spellcasters are toting Fireball, he's still piddling around with Magic Missile.

4)Spell Resistance. This is either a potential game-breaker or nothing to worry about, depending on how you adjudicate it. If you have it as a static statistic (i.e. SR: 19, no matter what level you are), it is useful at low levels, but becomes somewhat redundant in higher level games. If you scale with level (i.e. SR 19+class levels or similar), as is the case with most playable races that have SR, then it is a potent asset indeed and may be cause for concern. However, I draw you once again to the +5 ECL, which means that (barring the addition of feats like Spell Penetration), an equivalent ECL caster vs. a PD character will bypass his SR roughly 25% of the time. It's by no means an immunity and is, again, little more than an incresed survivability factor (which is something that some of the mid-range LA playable races lack).

Other than that, I don't see any particularly unbalancing features. I don't see them being very good fighter-types (or combatant of any sort), due to low strength and size and I don't see them being amazing spellcasters (who need all the caster levels they can muster), which pretty much leaves them with skill-monkey as the only particularly viable option...with sneaky Spy-types excelling, what with the +4 racial and +8(?) size bonus to Hide and excellent vision options (Low-Light and Dark vision + Blindsense).

Comments? Criticism? Personal experiences with the concept?
celestialkin
07-18-07, 05:39 PM The way I see it, you won't be much of a help to your party members in combat, but if you are playing in a more fun/roleplaying type game it should be fun and interesting to play. However, if you are playing a module, or a simple monster bashing game your character will be pretty useless. Either way, rogue might be the best class for it.

I have been wanting to play a Pseduodragon for over a year now, but all I have been playing lately are premade modules, which don't allow much time for roleplaying or creativity.
Dead_Weasel
07-18-07, 06:22 PM The way I see it, you won't be much of a help to your party members in combat, but if you are playing in a more fun/roleplaying type game it should be fun and interesting to play. However, if you are playing a module, or a simple monster bashing game your character will be pretty useless. Either way, rogue might be the best class for it.

QFT. With no big mental bonuses and an ECL of 5, pseudodragons cannot serve as primary casters of any kind in any real capacity, and they are never going to get any real damage from strength.

Classes I would suggest: ninja, rogue, scout.
Classes that might be worth a try: bard, marshal.
I have been wanting to play a Pseduodragon for over a year now, but all I have been playing lately are premade modules, which don't allow much time for roleplaying or creativity.

As have I. In particular I want to try either a pseudodragon ninja and go poison-crazy, or become a totemist and throw out a ridiculous number of natural attacks, with a particular focus on the soulmelds that grant natural attacks with energy damage/extra effects. The problem with the totemist route is that it contributes very little to a character that is Tiny, can already fly, and has numerous sense abilities. However, a pseudodragon covered in soulmelds is an extremely entertaining mental image.
Aaron Highcolor
07-18-07, 06:46 PM I think pseudodragons in 3rd Ed really went to crap. I prefer the 2nd edition, with invisibility instead of camoflage, and I believe they used to have limited telepathy.
Kesthol
07-18-07, 08:31 PM The Draconomicon lists Psuedodragons under "lesser dragon" PCs with an LA of +3.

Given the proclivity of Dragon PCs to have LA of +3 to +5, and having taken intensive looks at dragons as PCs, I would say this creature is probably balanced, as far as dragon PCs go.

Besides. It's the dragon equivalent of a housecat. What's not to love??
celestialkin
07-18-07, 09:25 PM I think pseudodragons in 3rd Ed really went to crap. I prefer the 2nd edition, with invisibility instead of camoflage, and I believe they used to have limited telepathy.

At least they did better than the Fairy Dragons. Not only did Wizards completely remake them, but they do not resemble the originals at all and they are completely unplayable. I miss my cute mischievous apple pie loving pseudodragons. :mad:
stargate525
07-18-07, 10:07 PM I think pseudodragons in 3rd Ed really went to crap. I prefer the 2nd edition, with invisibility instead of camoflage, and I believe they used to have limited telepathy.
They still have telepathy.

I might suggest a class that I think will work wonders, and that's a dragonfire adept. a full-size, once per round breath weapon (with fun and useful add-on features!) and some very nice invocations, combined with it being tiny and having a flight speed would make him deadly little comet of fiery death.

I'm actually going to be playing one of these pretty soon, so I'll tell you guys how it goes.
Neutronium_Dragon
07-18-07, 10:22 PM It has also been noted that Swordsage (Tome of Battle) makes an interesting class for a pseudodragon. The Swordsage generally isn't badly affected by their drawbacks and can leverage the advantages they do get.

And if you want to be a bit comical or at least make people blink, focus on the Setting Sun discipline so that you can fling full-sized opponents across the battlefield.
The_Shaman
07-19-07, 03:18 AM Has anyone tried using Dragonfire Adept or Dragon Shaman on a pseudodragon?

"Aw, come on, everyone knows the little buggers are harmless..."
whoomph
:gel: ((presuming a silver or white dragon link))
:dragon:
JellyPooga
07-19-07, 10:29 AM I think pseudodragons in 3rd Ed really went to crap. I prefer the 2nd edition, with invisibility instead of camoflage, and I believe they used to have limited telepathy.

With their bonuses to Hide, give them Hide in Plain Sight and they practically do have Invisibility...(that's what? 5 Ranks from Racial HD + 8 racial for hiding in undergrowth/forest setting + 8 size bonus + an average of 10 on the dice = 31 DC to spot him. That's better than Invisible to pretty much any character under level 6 or 7, because it's not magical and there's not a lot of ways to pump your Spot modifier. That's not including any situational bonuses for being in undergrowth/darkness and nor is it including any ranks in Hide from class levels).

Then again, I was never that familiar (heh...) with 2nd ed, so I don't really have any basis for comparison (on the whole).
Lunas_Argent
07-19-07, 10:59 AM What ever happened to the pocket dragon?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JellyPooga 07-18-07, 03:17 PM	Title says it all really...how viable and/or disruptive to a game is playing a Pseudodragon as a Player Character race? Just after some opinions really. I know that the LA listed is recommended for a cohort (though my copy of the MM doesn't say as much; it just lists a +3 LA) and the advancement entry doesn't say "by character class", but I don't see why a Pseudodragon couldn't make for a good Player Character. Personally, I don't see any overbearing problems...although they're a +3 LA, unlike some of the mid-range LA races (as in "over +2 but under +7"), they're not equipped with any particularly game-breaking abilities (like a Pixies Greater Invisibility ability) that I can see. Is there something I've missed? Here's some of the more prominent features that could be considered problems: 1)About the most difficult thing, for the DM to adjudicate/compensate for, is the fact that they have a fly speed (and a pretty good one too), but as far as I'm concerned, the usefulness of that is limited and balanced by the fact that they are Tiny and have (on average) a -4 modifier to Str (in relation to the Human average). This means that they can't do many things that a medium, average strength score dude could if given a fly speed (Tiny + (-4 Strength) = very low carrying capacity). Given the +5 ECL (+3 LA, 2 Racial HD), having a Fly speed just means that a Pseudodragon has a slightly better survivability (i.e. he can stay out of harms way, for the most part). 2)Poison. Potentially very powerful, but the DC is quite low (unless you pump Con or burn feats to raise it) and the damage is only sleep anyway. Must be delivered through Sting, which has pitiful damage too. 3)Tiny size but 5ft reach. one of the limiting factors of being Tiny is the lack of reach. Pseudodragons do not suffer from this, but only with their rather pitiful Sting attack. About the only "problem" I can see with this is if the DM decides to allow touch attack spells through his tail sting. On the other hand a PD spellcaster is 5 levels beind ECL...whilst other spellcasters are toting Fireball, he's still piddling around with Magic Missile. 4)Spell Resistance. This is either a potential game-breaker or nothing to worry about, depending on how you adjudicate it. If you have it as a static statistic (i.e. SR: 19, no matter what level you are), it is useful at low levels, but becomes somewhat redundant in higher level games. If you scale with level (i.e. SR 19+class levels or similar), as is the case with most playable races that have SR, then it is a potent asset indeed and may be cause for concern. However, I draw you once again to the +5 ECL, which means that (barring the addition of feats like Spell Penetration), an equivalent ECL caster vs. a PD character will bypass his SR roughly 25% of the time. It's by no means an immunity and is, again, little more than an incresed survivability factor (which is something that some of the mid-range LA playable races lack). Other than that, I don't see any particularly unbalancing features. I don't see them being very good fighter-types (or combatant of any sort), due to low strength and size and I don't see them being amazing spellcasters (who need all the caster levels they can muster), which pretty much leaves them with skill-monkey as the only particularly viable option...with sneaky Spy-types excelling, what with the +4 racial and +8(?) size bonus to Hide and excellent vision options (Low-Light and Dark vision + Blindsense). Comments? Criticism? Personal experiences with the concept?
celestialkin 07-18-07, 05:39 PM	The way I see it, you won't be much of a help to your party members in combat, but if you are playing in a more fun/roleplaying type game it should be fun and interesting to play. However, if you are playing a module, or a simple monster bashing game your character will be pretty useless. Either way, rogue might be the best class for it. I have been wanting to play a Pseduodragon for over a year now, but all I have been playing lately are premade modules, which don't allow much time for roleplaying or creativity.
Dead_Weasel 07-18-07, 06:22 PM	The way I see it, you won't be much of a help to your party members in combat, but if you are playing in a more fun/roleplaying type game it should be fun and interesting to play. However, if you are playing a module, or a simple monster bashing game your character will be pretty useless. Either way, rogue might be the best class for it. QFT. With no big mental bonuses and an ECL of 5, pseudodragons cannot serve as primary casters of any kind in any real capacity, and they are never going to get any real damage from strength. Classes I would suggest: ninja, rogue, scout. Classes that might be worth a try: bard, marshal. I have been wanting to play a Pseduodragon for over a year now, but all I have been playing lately are premade modules, which don't allow much time for roleplaying or creativity. As have I. In particular I want to try either a pseudodragon ninja and go poison-crazy, or become a totemist and throw out a ridiculous number of natural attacks, with a particular focus on the soulmelds that grant natural attacks with energy damage/extra effects. The problem with the totemist route is that it contributes very little to a character that is Tiny, can already fly, and has numerous sense abilities. However, a pseudodragon covered in soulmelds is an extremely entertaining mental image.
Aaron Highcolor 07-18-07, 06:46 PM	I think pseudodragons in 3rd Ed really went to crap. I prefer the 2nd edition, with invisibility instead of camoflage, and I believe they used to have limited telepathy.
Kesthol 07-18-07, 08:31 PM	The Draconomicon lists Psuedodragons under "lesser dragon" PCs with an LA of +3. Given the proclivity of Dragon PCs to have LA of +3 to +5, and having taken intensive looks at dragons as PCs, I would say this creature is probably balanced, as far as dragon PCs go. Besides. It's the dragon equivalent of a housecat. What's not to love??
celestialkin 07-18-07, 09:25 PM	I think pseudodragons in 3rd Ed really went to crap. I prefer the 2nd edition, with invisibility instead of camoflage, and I believe they used to have limited telepathy. At least they did better than the Fairy Dragons. Not only did Wizards completely remake them, but they do not resemble the originals at all and they are completely unplayable. I miss my cute mischievous apple pie loving pseudodragons. :mad:
stargate525 07-18-07, 10:07 PM	I think pseudodragons in 3rd Ed really went to crap. I prefer the 2nd edition, with invisibility instead of camoflage, and I believe they used to have limited telepathy. They still have telepathy. I might suggest a class that I think will work wonders, and that's a dragonfire adept. a full-size, once per round breath weapon (with fun and useful add-on features!) and some very nice invocations, combined with it being tiny and having a flight speed would make him deadly little comet of fiery death. I'm actually going to be playing one of these pretty soon, so I'll tell you guys how it goes.
Neutronium_Dragon 07-18-07, 10:22 PM	It has also been noted that Swordsage (Tome of Battle) makes an interesting class for a pseudodragon. The Swordsage generally isn't badly affected by their drawbacks and can leverage the advantages they do get. And if you want to be a bit comical or at least make people blink, focus on the Setting Sun discipline so that you can fling full-sized opponents across the battlefield.
The_Shaman 07-19-07, 03:18 AM	Has anyone tried using Dragonfire Adept or Dragon Shaman on a pseudodragon? "Aw, come on, everyone knows the little buggers are harmless..." whoomph :gel: ((presuming a silver or white dragon link)) :dragon:
JellyPooga 07-19-07, 10:29 AM	I think pseudodragons in 3rd Ed really went to crap. I prefer the 2nd edition, with invisibility instead of camoflage, and I believe they used to have limited telepathy. With their bonuses to Hide, give them Hide in Plain Sight and they practically do have Invisibility...(that's what? 5 Ranks from Racial HD + 8 racial for hiding in undergrowth/forest setting + 8 size bonus + an average of 10 on the dice = 31 DC to spot him. That's better than Invisible to pretty much any character under level 6 or 7, because it's not magical and there's not a lot of ways to pump your Spot modifier. That's not including any situational bonuses for being in undergrowth/darkness and nor is it including any ranks in Hide from class levels). Then again, I was never that familiar (heh...) with 2nd ed, so I don't really have any basis for comparison (on the whole).
Lunas_Argent 07-19-07, 10:59 AM	What ever happened to the pocket dragon?