Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can enjoy anime while not enjoying specific prevailing tropes of it.
That's exactly it. I love anime, but the whole sexy early teen girl thing is disturbing in anything that isn't geared towards children. If it's a Shonen it isn't so bad, since that's a kids show and therefore including child characters has a totally different context, but in an anime aimed towards adults I do find it off putting. My games are geared more towards adults, so it would be disturbing to have child PCs.
JurgenV |
TriOmegaZero wrote:You can enjoy anime while not enjoying specific prevailing tropes of it.That's exactly it. I love anime, but the whole sexy early teen girl thing is disturbing in anything that isn't geared towards children. If it's a Shonen it isn't so bad, since that's a kids show and therefore including child characters has a totally different context, but in an anime aimed towards adults I do find it off putting. My games are geared more towards adults, so it would be disturbing to have child PCs.
so none of that she looks 12 but we swears she's 18 stuff huh.....
Anarchy_Kanya |
When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, don't be surprised when people check for webbed feet. You were doing practically everything a dedicated min-maxer would in setting stats for a character. Don't be surprised when people come to that conclusion that you were in fact, intentionally min-maxing. You weren't creating Harry Potter, who after all wasn't really that smart or clever, at least at the start, you were creating Mini-Reed Richards.
I'm sorry, but I'm confused. How exactly being a child constitutes minmaxing in this situation? I mean, he did minmax his Wizard (and there's nothing wrong with that), but the "child thing" has absolutely nothing to do with that fact.
Personally I wouldn't enforce the NPC level thingy, but ability scores would get adjusted as per the Young Characters guideline. Children are weaker than adults, that's a fact. Doesn't mean they can't be capable adventurers.thejeff |
There's also a big difference between a game of children characters having advetures and a game with one child character hanging out with a bunch of adventurers. Especially if the player of the child in the latter case isn't willing to play the sidekick/mascot.
Even in anime, there are plenty of examples of the former and plenty of examples of the mascot version of the latter, but not a lot of the "child as equal partner with adult adventurers".
Child stats and NPC classes probably work fairly well for the sidekick.
Mystically Inclined |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In reading this thread, there was a lot of interesting conversation. I find myself surprised at one opinion expressed by a few people in the first page: the idea that if someone is using the rules for young characters from Ultimate Campaign, then they are intentionally sandbagging their player. The opinion seemed to be that you could allow or dissallow a young player, and use the young template or just make it cosmetic as you wished. But using the optional rule system for young characters made that player character weaker, and thus the GM was being 'a passive agressive douche.'
Opinions on young characters aside, I was rocked back on my heels by this antipathy towards GMs who like to use optional rules systems. It would be like a GM saying "sure, you can run a caster character, but magic is going through a huge transformative period in my world due to the outcome of our last campaign. Traditional magic is dying and being replaced by new forms of magic. Instead of using Vancien spellcasting, you'll have to use the Words of Power magic system instead." The player looks up the subsystem and realizes that since this optional rules system has received little support since its introduction, his WoP caster will have a weaker spell selection than a Vancian caster. Since the player is now 'forced' to use an optional rule system that makes his character weaker than it could have been, is the GM now a 'passsive agressive douche' with a grudge against casters?
(For those who have some problem with the WoP subsystem, feel free to insert 'Psychic magic/Power Point magic' from 3rd party, or 'DR instead of AC' from the Advanced Player's Guide. The point remains the same.)
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Opinions on young characters aside, I was rocked back on my heels by this antipathy towards GMs who like to use optional rules systems. It would be like a GM saying "sure, you can run a caster character, but magic is going through a huge transformative period in my world due to the outcome of our last campaign. Traditional magic is dying and being replaced by new forms of magic. Instead of using Vancien spellcasting, you'll have to use the Words of Power magic system instead." The player looks up the subsystem and realizes that since this optional rules system has received little support since its introduction, his WoP caster will have a weaker spell selection than a Vancian caster. Since the player is now 'forced' to use an optional rule system that makes his character weaker than it could have been, is the GM now a 'passsive agressive douche' with a grudge against casters?
I'm not sure "somewhat weaker version of magic, but probably still more powerful than martials" (or even your other options) is really equivalent to "Stat penalties and NPC classes only".
Alexander Augunas Contributor |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My answer is "No." You're already taking a rather serious stat penalty for being young, why do you need to be restricted to NPC classes?
That's even before mentioning that ALL of the characters mentioned in the Young Characters chapter's heading most certainly have levels in PC levels. Harry Potter is an arcanist, not an adept. Arya Stark is a rogue, not an expert. Aang is a Qinggong Monk, not a warrior/adept multiclass thing.
Why does a FANTASY game have to adhere to what children can do in the real world? It most certainly doesn't adhere to what adults can do in the real world.
Mystically Inclined |
I'm not sure "somewhat weaker version of magic, but probably still more powerful than martials" (or even your other options) is really equivalent to "Stat penalties and NPC classes only".
If the rules stated that the character would be restricted to NPC classes during their entire career sure, but the system is intended to be used only for a few levels (3-5 if nothing comes up before then). I'm not sold that an NPC class during the first few levels (1-3) would be a significant detriment to the party. Granted, it's not going to be the powerhouse either, but I seriously question whether could identify it as 'the load.'
My read through of the subsytem gave me the impression that there would be plenty of opportunities for the character to 'graduate' to a full PC class. I suppose it really comes down to the GM (how long till character graduation) and the group (would the character fit in and is it viable).
EDIT:
Why does a FANTASY game have to adhere to what children can do in the real world? It most certainly doesn't adhere to what adults can do in the real world.
Oh, you'll get no arguments from me that the system itself could use some work. It's anything but perfect, and in fact fails completely to set a workable class for ANY of the characters given (Harry Potter, Arya Stark, or Aang). My point isn't whether or not the rules system is good (though I think it's a decent way to model the growth of NORMAL children into heroes, but not any of the exceptional children listed in the flavor text)... my point is: why is a GM considered to be intentionally griefing their players when the GM opts to use a rules system that weakens the character? (And in this case, temporarily weakens the character?)
Arnwyn |
My question is, should DM's enforce the child ruleset on their players?
Yes.
Alternate answer: DMs are within their rights to do so. Find a different DM if you don't like it (or don't play children under that DM).
My players would find it ludicrous if it wasn't enforced. (Though, truthfully, such a character wouldn't even be allowed by anyone in the group, since none of us are cool with the whole 'children in peril' thing and/or are equal-to-adult-adventurers thing.)
I3igAl |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just ask your DM, if he wants a child character on his table. If he doesn't like your concept in his campaign, play something else.
I wouldn't have a problem with fully powered child characters. I mean we have high level characters able to beat up 100feet long dragons in melee. Does it really matter at that point if that guy is an 8-year-old or a grown up?
In an E6 campaign I would have more problems with child characters, but would allow more squishy classes to be such.
Redneckdevil |
My answer is "No." You're already taking a rather serious stat penalty for being young, why do you need to be restricted to NPC classes?
That's even before mentioning that ALL of the characters mentioned in the Young Characters chapter's heading most certainly have levels in PC levels. Harry Potter is an arcanist, not an adept. Arya Stark is a rogue, not an expert. Aang is a Qinggong Monk, not a warrior/adept multiclass thing.
Why does a FANTASY game have to adhere to what children can do in the real world? It most certainly doesn't adhere to what adults can do in the real world.
Mmmm ahhh i dunno if those are good examples. Going by the rules, the npc class is temporary until later levels or big events or etc. Going by ur examples, Harry Potter in book 1 i wouldnt consider an arcanist until a couple of books in and id say he stated as an adept. Arya Stark did not start out as a rogue in book 1 and wouldnt be considered one until a couple books later and id consider her as an aristocrat. Aang i would say fits as he is very experienced in air. Aang is really the only who doesnt fit while harry potter and stark actually seem to follow the actual rules in being a npc class and then later becoming a pc class instead.
Mystically Inclined |
(This was a continuation to my above post that I was writing as an additional edit. However, it got long and enough people posted in the interrim that I think it's worth posting on its own. Please consider this the 'part 2' to my post above.)
As for my own stance, I'm not married to any particular solution on how to do this. I have no problem with child characters in a fantasy setting, though I fully respect and commend the reasoning of those who do. For me personally, this is one of those areas where what is okay in fantasy is most certainly not okay in real life, but is fun to explore in the realm of fantasy. As far as how to accomplish that mechanically, I'd endorse any solution from 'no effect at all' to 'young template' to 'Ultimate Campaign subsystem' depending on the group and the expectations of the campaign they were going into. As a GM, I'd set the power level according to the group and the planned difficulty setting of the campaign.
As a player, I'd have no problem using the Ultimate Campaign subsystem so long as it was a less challenging campaign. You can roleplay it out either way, but the mechnical limitations of the NPC class provide some extra depth and excitment at the table. There's a different feel to it when roleplay choices are backed by mechanical limitations: when a purely cosmetic child character attempts to do something, things are normal. When a child character with an NPC class (or the young template, or some other mechanical limitation) attempts to do something and there's a more significant chance of failure because of those limitations then it adds a sense of depth to the character. The successes are sweeter when the kid succeeds, and failures could potentially occur more often (thus changing the story).
Of course, in another situation those mechanical limitations could also be incredibly frustrating. It's all going to depend on the expectations and attitude of everyone at the table. Which is why this rules set makes a great optional subsystem and a very poor 'one size fits all' solution.
Kerney |
Opinion: Don't like the RAW kids rules that much. I could go into why, but it doesn't matter.
I am going to suggest something I didn't see going through this.
I designed a Summoner archetype specifically for the "kid with a real imaginary friend" trope for one of my games. I could think of other options like a "devil child" witch or a young street kid rogue or whatever without much worry.
Perhaps, with archetypes that are slightly weaker than the original class would be a cool middle ground or a basis for a campagian.
Hope that was helpful.
Kerney
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider |
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:so none of that she looks 12 but we swears she's 18 stuff huh.....TriOmegaZero wrote:You can enjoy anime while not enjoying specific prevailing tropes of it.That's exactly it. I love anime, but the whole sexy early teen girl thing is disturbing in anything that isn't geared towards children. If it's a Shonen it isn't so bad, since that's a kids show and therefore including child characters has a totally different context, but in an anime aimed towards adults I do find it off putting. My games are geared more towards adults, so it would be disturbing to have child PCs.
speaking of lucky star and the like, i'm a more extreme real life case, i'm a 25 year old young adult woman chronologically, but could pass for a 10 year old girl cosmetically. but then, i am also mute and have to be accompanied by my boyfriend any time i want to see a movie, eat a chocolate bar, shop at a comic book store, or drink a margarita.
Alexander Augunas Contributor |
Alexander Augunas wrote:Mmmm ahhh i dunno if those are good examples. Going by the rules, the npc class is temporary until later levels or big events or etc. Going by ur examples, Harry Potter in book 1 i wouldnt consider an arcanist until a couple of books in and id say he stated as an adept. Arya Stark did not start out as a rogue in book 1 and wouldnt be considered one until a couple books later and id consider her as an aristocrat. Aang i would say fits as he is very experienced in air. Aang is really the only who doesnt fit while harry potter and stark actually seem to follow the actual rules in being a npc class and then later becoming a pc class instead.My answer is "No." You're already taking a rather serious stat penalty for being young, why do you need to be restricted to NPC classes?
That's even before mentioning that ALL of the characters mentioned in the Young Characters chapter's heading most certainly have levels in PC levels. Harry Potter is an arcanist, not an adept. Arya Stark is a rogue, not an expert. Aang is a Qinggong Monk, not a warrior/adept multiclass thing.
Why does a FANTASY game have to adhere to what children can do in the real world? It most certainly doesn't adhere to what adults can do in the real world.
Perhaps Araya doesn't fit well at the beginning, but does she stop being a child in Game of Thrones, or does she simply begin to retrain her NPC class levels and gain more PC class levels? She starts what is arguably swashbuckler / rogue training fairly on in Book 1. I would argue that by the time her story really starts (the end of A Game of Thrones) she is, in fact, a 1st level rogue. And still a child.
Harry Potter might not have started off Book 1 as an arcanist, but he, Ron, and especially Hermione most certainly gains their 1st level throughout Philosopher's Stone. And yet they're constantly reminded throughout the series (probably up until Book 5 or Book 6) that they're children.
And frankly, they may not be the *best* examples, but they're the three examples given in Chapter Three of Ultimate Campaign in the Young Characters section, and those rules simply don't do the characters that they mention justice.
Finn Kveldulfr |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now that I've read through this thread... I think I've decided where I stand if the subject ever comes up in a game I'm running--
And the answer is, "No." No PC child characters... any that you encounter and deal with as part of a particular adventure, will be NPCs.
Now, as a side note-- there are campaigns and games I can think of, that I might run, in which I might allow it-- but the game system wouldn't be Pathfinder, the setting probably won't be fantasy, and the tone/mood/etc will be much lighter, much more of either a social or comedy type of game, or, at the very least-- a game generally not involving life-and-death combat in a large portion of the game sessions. Exception MIGHT be made for an apocalypse-scenario type of game, where the kid's continuing to tag along because there is nowhere else for the child to go. If I were running a game of TFOS or something similar, well, when the characters are supposed to be high school students or the like, then kids are okay.
As to why...
Lemme put it a different way-- unless it's a "one-off" kind of game, what kind of sick @#$%s are the adults in the party, that they keep dragging kids off to the nasty, dark dangerous places of the world, constantly bringing them into harm's way and at grievous risk of life and limb, instead of finding the kid a decent home with a nice farmer's family or a place at the local Caydenite orphanage?
Kid constantly tagging along with a platoon of soldiers on the battlefield, going into the heat of battle over and over again? I DON'T THINK SO. And being an adventurer isn't that much different, if it's your long-term career.
Yes, there are parts of our "modern" world where various groups have used child soldiers and/or child suicide bombers-- I will not condone such behavior in my game, and it will only be involved in my game as an act of evil and a potential moral dilemma for PCs forced to deal with opponents resorting to such tactics (and that is generally part of a "world of suck" situation).
I have a real-world background as a soldier. Children intentionally employed on the battlefield as combatants is one of those issues I find very disturbing. Sorry-- you want that as an acceptable, tolerable part of your fantasy game-- find a different GM, 'cause I won't do it.
knightnday |
Does the GM have the right? Well, yes. If the two of you can find a way that you can agree on to make it work, then there you go.
For myself and my table, we'd be fairly leery to allow child PCs into most games. It isn't something we are particularly interested in to begin with, and unless it is a specific campaign focusing on the children/young adults, you can usually get the same results with someone that edges a lot closer to the adult age range.
I've run and played in a number of online (text) games where it was just not allowed at all because, well, people tend to take things into areas that they shouldn't and the owners of said games didn't want Chris Hansen wandering over to ask some questions. That may colour some of my view of this as well.
ElementalXX |
He shouldnt, he can, but he shouldnt.
The dms job is to get your players to have fun, maybe your gm doesnt find fun to have your character as a child, i dont know. In any case he is using the rules provided. I would say talk to him, explain him how is this important and how unfun would be to play an adept, if he is unresanable i would advice you to play with him, probably what he is specting and what you are specting is not the same.
For one instance if you say i want my character to be an alcoholic and the dm says he is gonna have a permanent penalty to will saves and -4 to con dex and str i would certaintly consider the sanity of said dm. I can smell dick dms from miles.
Zodiac_Sheep |
He can, but shouldn't.
If he doesn't want you to play a kid, he should say that you shouldn't and you should respect that. No "s/he's 25 but looks and acts 11, teehee," crap either. I think it's a little silly to put a limit on things like that, but he's the DM. Respect that.
That being said, the DM should look at it like this from a "should I let a character play a kid" standpoint (I'm pretty secure in thinking letting you play it but making you take NPC classes is just dumb):
1) Would it make anyone at the table, INCLUDING THE DM, uncomfortable? How uncomfortable?
2) How does you being a child further the story? Doesn't have to be in definite terms (he's the child of the king in the AP or something isn't necessary, but it's a little weird to want to play an 11 year old 'just cuz').
You shouldn't be punished or assisted by playing a kid, but if it causes problems for anyone at the table it shouldn't happen. As the local career DM, I'd ask everyone at the table what they think. If no one disliked the idea, and I know I wouldn't particularly care, I'd let it happen. But if anyone piped up, I'd flat out say no. Sure, "realistically" the kid should take penalties, but it's about fun and if I can guarantee that everyone is cool with it we put it down on the sheet. Done.
Also, to ElementalXX, I can smell a DM's dick from miles. I think I got the short end of the stick.
chaoseffect |
chaoseffect wrote:He wasn't making a "poor mechanical choice", he was min-maxing his character, presumably with the thought of getting a further boost to his Intellect when he hit the Young Adult stage.Matthew Downie wrote:Suppose I want to play a rogue with all my stat points going into charisma. Should the GM ban me from doing so, allow me to do so, or change the rules to make me as powerful as anyone else?
Is allowing it and not changing the rules a punishment?You intentionally making a poor mechanical choice is an entirely different matter then cosmetic choices being arbitrarily punished by the rules.
.
I was referring to what I was quoting, a hypothetical statement about an all charisma rogue.
Pendagast |
Azten wrote:I'm betting I'm the only one who likes the Young Character rule set in this thread. There's retraining rules too, you know, and as a wizard you'd start off as an Adept and not be totally useless. :)An Adept would still be mostly useless and overshadowed in a party composed of PC classes. Saying "sure you can retrain in X in-game years into a real class" is just adding insult to injury unless your DM is planning and making you aware that there will be large jumps in time in the campaign... and that one applicable to the retraining will be happening soon.
so 8 year olds in physical sports or combat aren't overshadowed by adults IRL?
why should this somehow not be the case in the game system?
If someone doesn't want to play a disadvantaged character, they don't have to.
Pendagast |
If there is anything a child character could conceivably do as well as an adult, its magic.
except there is no situation where a child prodigy version of a character wouldn't be gimped in comparison to it's adult self.
There are already rules available for an int 20 adult wizard…the child version of that character would be lesser.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
chaoseffect wrote:Azten wrote:I'm betting I'm the only one who likes the Young Character rule set in this thread. There's retraining rules too, you know, and as a wizard you'd start off as an Adept and not be totally useless. :)An Adept would still be mostly useless and overshadowed in a party composed of PC classes. Saying "sure you can retrain in X in-game years into a real class" is just adding insult to injury unless your DM is planning and making you aware that there will be large jumps in time in the campaign... and that one applicable to the retraining will be happening soon.so 8 year olds in physical sports or combat aren't overshadowed by adults IRL?
why should this somehow not be the case in the game system?
If someone doesn't want to play a disadvantaged character, they don't have to.
you are talking about a fantasy RPG involving very Superhuman characters that defy physics. an 8 year old PC wouldn't be your average 8 year old squire, she should be the prodigal knight who is only labeled a squire due to her age and equal to the other PCs
the other 8 year olds can be physically disadvantaged all you want them to be, as long as you don't disadvantage the child PC who is in the group of player characters and should be considered drastically beyond the norm
a child who survives a dungeon crawl with an adventurer mentor, is going to grow up fast and do things that are physically impossible for other children of the same general age category. sometimes drastically so
you can penalize the NPC 8 year olds in physical activity as long as you acknowledge that the 8 year old PC is an outlier and nothing resembling a realistic 8 year old, because fantasy is loaded with characters who catch up quickly and has its fair share of children that can keep up with the adults just fine.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider |
Subparhiggins wrote:If there is anything a child character could conceivably do as well as an adult, its magic.except there is no situation where a child prodigy version of a character wouldn't be gimped in comparison to it's adult self.
There are already rules available for an int 20 adult wizard…the child version of that character would be lesser.
while that would be fine for an NPC, for a PC, age should be cosmetic, and unless the character is seeking a very specific mechanical advantage from their age, you shouldn't generally penalize the PC for their age, unless the mechanical bonus you offer is proportionate to the penalty offered
for example, being a size smaller with +2 dexterity and -2 strength for some ages is fine, it balances out, but assigning arbritrary penalties to a fantasy player character to enforce realism on a game where warriors suplex balors and win, does it matter whether the warrior suplexing the balor is a 30 year old male or a 12 year old female? either way, killing a balor by suplexing it is pretty high fantasy, so we can be lenient with PC children being equivalent to adults.
Zodiac_Sheep |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i'm 25 and i look around 10ish. realisitcally. so there is real world precedent for girls that missed puberty well into adulthood.
I'm not saying there isn't precedent; I'm saying that if TC wants to play an 11-year old, is told no, and then plays a character who's 25 and looks and acts like an 11-year old he's doing it to be a dick, not because it's conceivably possible.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider |
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:i'm 25 and i look around 10ish. realisitcally. so there is real world precedent for girls that missed puberty well into adulthood.I'm not saying there isn't precedent; I'm saying that if TC wants to play an 11-year old, is told no, and then plays a character who's 25 and looks and acts like an 11-year old he's doing it to be a dick, not because it's conceivably possible.
well, i happen to be mute, and the only childlike feature i have is my appearance. i act a bit older than i appear.
Durngrun Stonebreaker |
Pendagast wrote:Subparhiggins wrote:If there is anything a child character could conceivably do as well as an adult, its magic.except there is no situation where a child prodigy version of a character wouldn't be gimped in comparison to it's adult self.
There are already rules available for an int 20 adult wizard…the child version of that character would be lesser.
while that would be fine for an NPC, for a PC, age should be cosmetic, and unless the character is seeking a very specific mechanical advantage from their age, you shouldn't generally penalize the PC for their age, unless the mechanical bonus you offer is proportionate to the penalty offered
for example, being a size smaller with +2 dexterity and -2 strength for some ages is fine, it balances out, but assigning arbritrary penalties to a fantasy player character to enforce realism on a game where warriors suplex balors and win, does it matter whether the warrior suplexing the balor is a 30 year old male or a 12 year old female? either way, killing a balor by suplexing it is pretty high fantasy, so we can be lenient with PC children being equivalent to adults.
Wait, age should be cosmetic unless it provides a mechanical advantage?
knightnday |
But it isn't cosmetic. This is something covered in the rules -- that is, modifiers due to age. This isn't "I want to be short", this is something that carries advantages and disadvantages, enough so that Halflings can take Childlike as a Feat.
With anything someone does when designing a character, intent plays into it.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider |
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:Wait, age should be cosmetic unless it provides a mechanical advantage?Pendagast wrote:Subparhiggins wrote:If there is anything a child character could conceivably do as well as an adult, its magic.except there is no situation where a child prodigy version of a character wouldn't be gimped in comparison to it's adult self.
There are already rules available for an int 20 adult wizard…the child version of that character would be lesser.
while that would be fine for an NPC, for a PC, age should be cosmetic, and unless the character is seeking a very specific mechanical advantage from their age, you shouldn't generally penalize the PC for their age, unless the mechanical bonus you offer is proportionate to the penalty offered
for example, being a size smaller with +2 dexterity and -2 strength for some ages is fine, it balances out, but assigning arbritrary penalties to a fantasy player character to enforce realism on a game where warriors suplex balors and win, does it matter whether the warrior suplexing the balor is a 30 year old male or a 12 year old female? either way, killing a balor by suplexing it is pretty high fantasy, so we can be lenient with PC children being equivalent to adults.
only for PCs, you can have physically weak child NPCs, but for PCs, age should generally be cosmetic, and outside of certain outliers, the only time age should come with penalties for a PC is if those penalties are balanced by an equivalent mechanical advantage, but generally, a PC's age shouldn't really matter in a fantasy game built to escape the real world and accomplish superhuman feats we ourselves can't accomplish
physics went out the window the moment the game included sentient nonhuman species, magic and mythical monsters as reality, most people seeking to take an age penalty in one area, are seeking to use their age to minmax their character in one more desirable facet
if the player isn't seeking to use their age to minmax something, let them go hog wild with cosmetic age. does it matter whether the warrior suplexing the balor and winning is a 30 year old knight or a 12 year old gothloli noblewoman? either way, suplexing a balor and winning is a pretty mythic feat that no mortal in our world can accomplish, regardless of age.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider |
But it isn't cosmetic. This is something covered in the rules -- that is, modifiers due to age. This isn't "I want to be short", this is something that carries advantages and disadvantages, enough so that Halflings can take Childlike as a Feat.
With anything someone does when designing a character, intent plays into it.
childlike is a worthless feat tax with no mechanical benefit that should have been left as a cosmetic thing, as is the pass for human feat, age modifiers exist for middle aged and older, but the only rules that exist for children, are a series of optional rules in a book that contains nothing but optional rules and holds no more weight on pathfinder than unearthed arcana ever did in D&D. (no weight at all)
i don't even consider ultimate campaign a valid rules resource, just like i don't even consider unearthed arcana a valid rules resource either. both are books of rules that are purely designed to be optional and the book states it holds no weight as an official rulebook.
in fact, the rules on child characters are just as useless as the rules on armor as Damage Reduction, they aren't proper rules, they are just a badly thought out houserule suggestion
wraithstrike |
what about an extremely small, underweight and underdeveloped adult woman in her twenties who looks more than 10 years younger than she should due to her small, underweight and underdeveloped frame? a character with a frame like my own?
As a GM that is fine because a child sized adult has the capacity and authority to make adult decisions. As a player my character would have to be convinced that you are actually an adult and. maybe that you are not a liability. Of course I would likely metagame to RP acceping you into the party also since the real me knows you are supposed to be with the party.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider |
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:what about an extremely small, underweight and underdeveloped adult woman in her twenties who looks more than 10 years younger than she should due to her small, underweight and underdeveloped frame? a character with a frame like my own?As a GM that is fine because a child sized adult has the capacity and authority to make adult decisions. As a player my character would have to be convinced that you are actually an adult and. maybe that you are not a liability. Of course I would likely metagame to RP acceping you into the party also since the real me knows you are supposed to be with the party.
so a 25 year old woman, who appears to be a 10 year old girl due to genetic issues, but acts between 19 and 27 is fine? i would probably play a slayer, barbarian, manifester, full caster or one of those partial casters to work around my small frame
Cardz5000 |
As a person with your life experiences I feel you would have an appreciation for how unique they are. If someone wrote you as a PF character I would expect them to realize that there would be mechanical disadvantages, or would you have me believe that not once has your genetic issue left you in a situation that would have not been easier to deal with without said issue?
knightnday |
childlike is a worthless feat tax with no mechanical benefit that should have been left as a cosmetic thing, as is the pass for human feat, age modifiers exist for middle aged and older, but the only rules that exist for children, are a series of optional rules in a book that contains nothing but optional rules and holds no more weight on pathfinder than unearthed arcana ever did in D&D. (no weight at all)
i don't even consider ultimate campaign a valid rules resource, just like i don't even consider unearthed arcana a valid rules resource either. both are books of rules that are purely designed to be optional and the book states it holds no weight as an official rulebook.
in fact, the rules on child characters are just as useless as the rules on armor as Damage Reduction, they aren't proper rules, they are just a badly thought out houserule suggestion
There's the thing. What is the intent by playing the child? What are you trying to accomplish and where are we going to stand when mechanics come into play as they are almost likely to do? Same goes with just letting the halfling pretend to be a kid because it is a cosmetic thing and so on.
I'd like to bring back Zodiac_Sheep's comment
2) How does you being a child further the story? Doesn't have to be in definite terms (he's the child of the king in the AP or something isn't necessary, but it's a little weird to want to play an 11 year old 'just cuz').
That is important in all of this.
As for the bit about whether X book is or isn't a valid rules resource, that's for an individual to decide. It does give a GM and player common ground to see how the game suggests they could take this.
knightnday |
As a person with your life experiences I feel you would have an appreciation for how unique they are. If someone wrote you as a PF character I would expect them to realize that there would be mechanical disadvantages, or would you have me believe that not once has your genetic issue left you in a situation that would have not been easier to deal with without said issue?
A quote from Auren earlier:
speaking of lucky star and the like, i'm a more extreme real life case, i'm a 25 year old young adult woman chronologically, but could pass for a 10 year old girl cosmetically. but then, i am also mute and have to be accompanied by my boyfriend any time i want to see a movie, eat a chocolate bar, shop at a comic book store, or drink a margarita.
That definitely seems like more than a cosmetic modification. In fact, I know that is a HERO games disadvantage (I remember from some NPCS.)
wraithstrike |
wraithstrike wrote:so a 25 year old woman, who appears to be a 10 year old girl due to genetic issues, but acts between 19 and 27 is fine? i would probably play a slayer, barbarian, manifester, full caster or one of those partial casters to work around my small frameAuren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:what about an extremely small, underweight and underdeveloped adult woman in her twenties who looks more than 10 years younger than she should due to her small, underweight and underdeveloped frame? a character with a frame like my own?As a GM that is fine because a child sized adult has the capacity and authority to make adult decisions. As a player my character would have to be convinced that you are actually an adult and. maybe that you are not a liability. Of course I would likely metagame to RP acceping you into the party also since the real me knows you are supposed to be with the party.
To me it is fine. The issue of someone being a child is the issue, not that they are child sized. If that was the case I would not allow gnomes or halfings. :)
Create Mr. Pitt |
There are so many legendary and interesting child characters. Often they are put into that place by tragic circumstances, sometimes by noble ones. Earlier I suggested war orphan sorcerer and a traveling family, but there are plenty of other fascinating backstories. A hidden heir or prince. A child set aside in the forest by a society with overpopulation.
Perhaps their ought to be some mechanical variations; it depends on the table, but if it works with everyone else at the table it's a perfectly valid world to explore. Throughout history children have been at risk and in fiction they often are. If roleplayed well and with mature immaturity I think such a character would be a welcome addition at my table. Polom and Porom in FFII (U.S.) were great child characters who actually had a seemingly tragic ending; compelling drama.
I agree it has to be for the right table, but as a GM I would try to accommodate it without any penalties if at all possible. In a recent game one player excellently played Calvin and Hobbes as a summoner. Why restrict? It depends on the world mostly, but I would always try to accommodate as long as the child character matches the tone of the game.
Kerney |
Yes, there are parts of our "modern" world where various groups have used child soldiers and/or child suicide bombers-- I will not condone such behavior in my game, and it will only be involved in my game as an act of evil and a potential moral dilemma for PCs forced to deal with opponents resorting to such tactics (and that is generally part of a "world of suck" situation).I have a real-world background as a soldier. Children intentionally employed on the battlefield as combatants is one of those issues I find very disturbing. Sorry-- you want that as an acceptable, tolerable part of your fantasy game-- find a different GM, 'cause I won't do it.
You know, even though I don't like the rules for child characters and could think of many reasons to justify such a character, both fictional and historical, were GMing you or playing with someone like you, I would to would respect your wishes.
Sometimes, one must respect the heartfelt feelings of others, especially when they come from real world experience.
HectorVivis |
It's not as if the rules already defines you're not really bound to NPC classes only. Just wait a little. 3 levels aren't that long. But I'm okay 5 it can be a little long, but often you already dealt with a "long journey" and other big task required to go into the adult category.
It's a bummer if you want to be a int-based character at start, but the GM can maybe houserule the adept to be more fitting.
Talk to your GM. He is the one who decides what rule to use, and compromising will be more efficient than reading a bunch of strangers on the internet arguing about a situation we don't freakin' know about.
ElementalXX |
Mechanics should be a helpful tool to play interesting concepts and not an impediment.
Is like....
Player: I want to play an asassin
DM: ok but you have to take the asassin prc
Player: but i can play a slayer right? and say he´s an asassin
DM: no no,look , you say you want to play an asassin so you have to play an asassin, its covered in the rules
Player: Erm can i take slayer levels and take asassin levels?
DM: No you have to take rogue levels and then asassin levels
Player: but a rogue is not a asassin
DM: BUT I DONT LIKE SLAYERS IN MY CAMPAIGN OK? GTFO HERE
Pendagast |
Pendagast wrote:Subparhiggins wrote:If there is anything a child character could conceivably do as well as an adult, its magic.except there is no situation where a child prodigy version of a character wouldn't be gimped in comparison to it's adult self.
There are already rules available for an int 20 adult wizard…the child version of that character would be lesser.
while that would be fine for an NPC, for a PC, age should be cosmetic, and unless the character is seeking a very specific mechanical advantage from their age, you shouldn't generally penalize the PC for their age, unless the mechanical bonus you offer is proportionate to the penalty offered
for example, being a size smaller with +2 dexterity and -2 strength for some ages is fine, it balances out, but assigning arbritrary penalties to a fantasy player character to enforce realism on a game where warriors suplex balors and win, does it matter whether the warrior suplexing the balor is a 30 year old male or a 12 year old female? either way, killing a balor by suplexing it is pretty high fantasy, so we can be lenient with PC children being equivalent to adults.
He/she will ALWAYS be disadvantaged when compared to his/her adult SELF.
when generating a character starting age and level 1 are considered ground zero.
Variables on age and level add/subtract to that beginning template..
You can't change this fact anymore than you can change the fact that I can't have a middle aged character that gets the benefit of increased mental stats but gets to ignore the depletion of physical stats.
Pendagast |
knightnday wrote:But it isn't cosmetic. This is something covered in the rules -- that is, modifiers due to age. This isn't "I want to be short", this is something that carries advantages and disadvantages, enough so that Halflings can take Childlike as a Feat.
With anything someone does when designing a character, intent plays into it.
childlike is a worthless feat tax with no mechanical benefit that should have been left as a cosmetic thing, as is the pass for human feat, age modifiers exist for middle aged and older, but the only rules that exist for children, are a series of optional rules in a book that contains nothing but optional rules and holds no more weight on pathfinder than unearthed arcana ever did in D&D. (no weight at all)
i don't even consider ultimate campaign a valid rules resource, just like i don't even consider unearthed arcana a valid rules resource either. both are books of rules that are purely designed to be optional and the book states it holds no weight as an official rulebook.
in fact, the rules on child characters are just as useless as the rules on armor as Damage Reduction, they aren't proper rules, they are just a badly thought out houserule suggestion
Unearthed Arcana had the original DnD Barbarian, the thief-acrobat, and some other decent stuff, it was the functional equivalent of the Advanced Players Guide.
Pendagast |
Pendagast wrote:There are already rules available for an int 20 adult wizard…the child version of that character would be lesser.Why?
Why.
Again. Give me a source where the child version of anyone has been better than their young adult or older self.
This argument is like trying to build a dragon that is 8 and arguing that it should be as good as an adult dragon.
IF the character is able to cast spells and have an int 20 at 8… it will be bigger and more powerful as an adult.
EXCEPT, in this case, the rules state the ADULT is ground zero. the starting point.
So, the child version of this character is lesser.
Otherwise, I would just be able to start the campaign with "My character began adventuring at age 8, I rolled and Im 18 now, so I had ten years of adventuring, so MY character has so start now at level 3"
IF children were not universally recognized as lesser than their adult counterparts (because they are) then there would be no need for education, laws required for taking care of them, laws preventing abuse and/or exploitation of them and so on.
Children need protection and special consideration because they are lesser.
As previously stated, the rules provided are for making an adult version of the character you are conceptualizing, if you want to start this character earlier in it's life cycle, you would be creating a lesser version of it.