Should DM's enforce the Child Characters ruleset?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 420 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Liam Warner wrote:
That's part of why I find using it so baffling since it effectively says "YOU shalt suck most righteoulsy until 3rd level or you do something like oh finishing this mission then spend downtime retraining so you have the same levels as everyone else but stat penalties for being younger." Why not just apply the stat penalties and let them have the same PC levels from the start and assume they've already had some major event that move them from NPC to PC which is why their adventuring in the first place?

That is certainly an option. Another, which seems to be a target for the dreaded "passive aggressive" comment, are those in the book.

In the end, if you allow children to be characters, it is up to the GM and players to decide if children should be the equivalent of adults or if they should have some sort of meaningful downside to not being fully grown, apprenticed, or otherwise trained members of their species.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dragging this back towards the light, I'll comment that there can be interesting child/teen characters that one could have in a game: a younger version of Gaston from Ladyhawke, Talen from the Sparkhawk saga, Garion or X'Nedra from the Belgariad, a squire for your knight, an apprentice and so on.

They are interesting not for being children/teens, but because they are interesting characters. They'd be interesting at 20 as well, I'd add.

Again, the questions become why you want to play someone so much younger than what would be standard for an adventurer, and what sort of impact that should have mechanically and otherwise.

Before we ever got that far I'd want a clear understanding of the whys for this character and what the goals here are before we'd discuss mechanics. "Just because" or "there are wizards who can cast spells so therefore.." isn't a discussion, it's an evasion. Of course, I tend to ask questions of my players and their concepts before dice touch the table so this isn't anything new for us. The further into oddness you go, the more questions there are.


Ed Reppert wrote:

People keep talking about adepts. Adepts, as far as I can see, are divine casters. Wizards are not divine casters. I suppose one could play an adept under the "child" rules and then switch to wizard at age 20, but that would not seem to me to be a logical progression, and the former adept would lose all his divine casting abilities, I think.

If we read the OP question as: "if the GM is going to allow child players (i.e., younger than the game's expected "minimum" age per the CRB) ought he to follow the rules for child players, or should he do something else?" then my answer is "that's up to the GM" (as is whether to allow child players at all). In my campaigns (if I had any <g>) it would take a very special situation for me to allow child players. I can't say I would never allow it, but frankly, right now I can't see a situation where I would.

The first part was pretty much my entire annoyance. If I could have actually had her be a Arcane caster, then I wouldn't mind. The issue is that there ARE no arcane NPC classes, which is why I was rather annoyed by these rules.

And yeah, I have to agree with your later thing now, after I simmered down for a while. I'd ask to close the thread, but I can't help but be enthralled by the arguments, and watching the arguments from both sides. It's rather entertaining, kinda wish I brought popcorn, though I admit the calling all gamers pedophiles strikes me as incredibly stupid, due to a severe lack of data. Providing data would be interesting.

As for how I'd play her, somewhat like a young, immature 17 year old, who is incredibly bitter as to the fact that NOBODY really trusts her, and is VERY hypocritical. She'd be very arrogant, with a feeling that she can do anything (This would, predictably, get crushed as she went along). Her age would get in her way more than anything else.

And yeah, they really are judgmental of them, aren't they? The DM is rather nice, but is a very, VERY raw focused from a lot of PFS. And does not allow retraining. Hence my massive amount of annoyance at these rules.


So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what? Because they wanted to play Harry Potter? Sometimes your character's story starts before they are "real people" as people are seeming to imply that children aren't.

Liberty's Edge

What we're saying is there are as many reasons, legit ones, that exist in the actual REAL world that warrant a "no". Not that everyone who wants to play Harry Potter also wants to sleep with Harry Potter.


Vagabonds. wrote:

As for how I'd play her, somewhat like a young, immature 17 year old, who is incredibly bitter as to the fact that NOBODY really trusts her, and is VERY hypocritical. She'd be very arrogant, with a feeling that she can do anything (This would, predictably, get crushed as she went along). Her age would get in her way more than anything else.

See, that would bother me. Even a brilliant 8 year old is still 8. If you want to play an immature teenager, play an immature teenager.


Eh .. I have kids. They are working to become "real people", but they still have a long way to go, many more experiences to get and so on. Children are lovely creatures but they need a great deal more seasoning before they have the tools necessary to handle a great many of things a standard life, let alone an adventuring life, would bring.

And this isn't about playing Harry alongside Hermoine and Ron and having adventures. This is Harry in the first book, Dumbledore, Snape and Hagrid wandering off for adventures.

Editted to add: And are the other adventurers OK with trusting their life to someone who is younger than the socks the dwarf has on?


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?

It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone. Especially in games like stuff I'd run, where sexual violence and violence against children do happen, and monsters are called monsters because they do monstrous things. It's one thing when all the adventurers are adults. Add child adventurers into the mix, and you have something I don't want to touch.


knightnday wrote:

Eh .. I have kids. They are working to become "real people", but they still have a long way to go, many more experiences to get and so on. Children are lovely creatures but they need a great deal more seasoning before they have the tools necessary to handle a great many of things a standard life, let alone an adventuring life, would bring.

And this isn't about playing Harry alongside Hermoine and Ron and having adventures. This is Harry in the first book, Dumbledore, Snape and Hagrid wandering off for adventures.

Well, probably not them, since they're high level. OTOH, the suggestion for a kid years younger than Harry. So Harry, a few years before Hogwarts, off on adventure with a bunch of 7th years. But he's a prodigy, so he's as good as they are. And don't worry about any immaturity or anything like that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:

If you ever want to play a fun game, run your PFS (or any game with a list of participants by real name) roster at any Con against that state's Sex Offender registry. It's an eye opener.

Some of us live in the real world and have children. Gaming is becoming a scary place.

Are you saying that from empirical evidence, or just throwing out hyperbole?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
knightnday wrote:

Dragging this back towards the light, I'll comment that there can be interesting child/teen characters that one could have in a game: a younger version of Gaston from Ladyhawke, Talen from the Sparkhawk saga, Garion or X'Nedra from the Belgariad, a squire for your knight, an apprentice and so on.

Thing here is that the person advocating for childhood has fluff wouldn't be content unless Ce'Nedra had has much power as Polgara. Gaston is not the equal of any of the companions that fate has thrown him in with. That doesn't stop him from having his own worth as a character.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?

It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.

I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.

They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.

Shadow Lodge

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I played in a game with a kid PC. She was a sorcerer.

She was self-obsessed, entitled, and incredibly childish, as one might expect. The only thing is, because she was a sorcerer, she was able to drop fireballs and baleful polymorph people she didn't like into kittens.

Needless to say this lead to some serious strife for the paladin in the party, who had this been an adult, would've (by his words) killed the bugger a long time ago.

The thing a lot of people don't think about is what's "acceptable behavior" for a kid doesn't fly as an adult. But that's okay, because kids are under the thumb of adults, who do have control over their behavior for the most part, in multiple ways.

We don't give power/privileges to kids for a reason.

You can't take an IQ test and start driving before age (at least here where I live) no matter how smart you are. That's because an automobile is a multi-thousand pound weapon of death in the wrong hands.

A kid with class levels in a major caster class is a LOT of power.

Theoretically a kid could self-teach driving, build their own car, etc, but it wouldn't be very long before those in power stopped them from driving. I can't see the wizards of Golarion being okay with some kid runnning around with major power like that.

As a GM, if I did allow kid PCs (which I wouldn't), they'd be persecuted for it at the very least.

But, as I said, I wouldn't anyway. Kids, when you take away their cuteness and innocence, are obnoxious. Any adult that behaves as a child is obnoxious. An adult RPing a kid would be obnoxious.

That's just my opinion, but it's a strong one.

Well beign a douce has nothing to do with beign a kid, many douce players play paladins, thats why "lawfukl stupid" exists


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?

It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.

I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.

They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.

If I were a parent, I'd probably be even more uncomfortable with PCs who'd willingly allow a child to go into combat against things that can tear an adult to shreds.


Maybe I'm going back a few posts, but when someone mentioned running a cross check between sex offenders and PFS groups, all I could think was "Dude, what self respecting parent lets their kid hang out with a group of adults for four hours at a time unsupervised, REGARDLESS of if those adults have records or not?"


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Maybe I'm going back a few posts, but when someone mentioned running a cross check between sex offenders and PFS groups, all I could think was "Dude, what self respecting parent lets their kid hang out with a group of adults for four hours at a time unsupervised, REGARDLESS of if those adults have records or not?"

My maternal grandmother. Turns out they did have records.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

If you ever want to play a fun game, run your PFS (or any game with a list of participants by real name) roster at any Con against that state's Sex Offender registry. It's an eye opener.

Some of us live in the real world and have children. Gaming is becoming a scary place.

Are you saying that from empirical evidence, or just throwing out hyperbole?

Personal research. No hyperbole.

One dude, a professor of mine, was a good DM and I asked him to run a game for my group. I eventually moved away, but the group still played with him and they became close. He babysat for one of the guys and molested his kids, and did time. I found out, and I have been careful ever since, which is easier now with the SO registry.

I didn't start hard core using the DPS Sex Offender registry until I went back on my first violation in 2011 and all of the SOs had been "outed". Until then, I only used it for people I was thinking of inviting into my home. After then, I did so to see how bad it was.

It's bad.

Liberty's Edge

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Maybe I'm going back a few posts, but when someone mentioned running a cross check between sex offenders and PFS groups, all I could think was "Dude, what self respecting parent lets their kid hang out with a group of adults for four hours at a time unsupervised, REGARDLESS of if those adults have records or not?"
My maternal grandmother. Turns out they did have records.

Um, the more important question is, why do cons allow registered sex offenders to buy tickets and be around children? I don't leave my kids with anyone I do not know and trust completely (mostly just a couple I babysit for when they need a break and relatives).

Also, maybe I'm a little leery of letting anyone I don't know well into my home, and want to make sure anyone I invite to a home game isn't on file as being a chomo.


DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:
Vagabonds. wrote:

So, recently, while attempting to sign up for a campaign online, I proposed a 11 year old half-Elf Wizard who taught herself magic from the ground up from the age of six (Int 20), but was denied due to her being too young, and said that if I wanted to play a child, I would have to use the Young Characters ruleset.

This, predictably, is annoying, primarily due to forcing me to take NPC class levels, rather than actual wizard levels. My question is, should DM's enforce the child ruleset on their players?

A note: I would be the only child there.

Yes, the young characters rules should be enforced. It makes zero sense for an 11 year old to be as capable and competent as an adult adventuring professional.

Im not sure I entirely agree with this, as for example in military history, combat men have routinely been lead into battle by younger men, and in some cases women who, in certain circumstances were barely more than children themselves.

They are referred to in most cases as, Junior grade officers.
But an officer, originally, not in modern day, was educated, were the combat men, were not, generally.

I can think of more than one occasion during a battle where a boy of 14, would be ordering the men to fire their cannons on the enemy ship.

So the Age = more experienced or senior , IRL, is already debunked, so there is especially no reason to consider it a taboo in Fantasy.

I believe at several points in history, kings of france and england were mere children themselves, but you're also talking about children who were groomed for this eventual seat of power since the point which they could walk and talk, so 8 years of training isn't your typical "child" anything.

Ill also draw your attention to RL child actors, who get paid more money for a movie appearance than most of us adults posting here will make in a career, and then to child athletes, capable of gymnastic/acrobatics none of us could pull off if we were offered a million dollars if we succeeded.

I, personally have witnessed 11-12 year old receive their black belt.
Could a determined adult, with the proper size, strength and malicious intent, defeat them in combat without any martial arts training? Yes.
Ive also seen that.
But Ive also seen 30 year old men and women NOT get their black belt.
So I don't think it's fair to say that 11 year olds can't be as capable at certain things as adults.
IT depends on what you spent your years on.

Hitler youth, trained killers the ages of 11-17 occupied the trenches of combat around berlin.
Had they met in combat with basic trainees fresh from basic, they would have been an even match.
They were, however, slugs under the boots of combat veterans with YEARS of experience from units like the 101st airborne and the people's red army.
These kids would have eaten a trainees face off however, but we didn't send trainees to take berlin, so the effort and training were moot.

But this raises another issue with the age rules.

We are to believe that a 23 year old half elf wizard has the same training, capability, and skills/knowledge as a 47 year old dwarf, because they are both starting out first level wizards?

WTH has the dwarf been doing??
Drinking GROG?

the older races have nothing to show for their time except an obscure feat called "breadth of experience" which, to be honest, all the older races should get for free.

I mean a starting out elf character is well over 100 years old, and has nothing more to show for that time than the half orc who is basically a teen ager.

we explain this, that the elf has spent a century or more frolicking in the forest sniffing daffodils?

Silver Crusade

This thread got dark fast.

But like the old saying goes: "Sex offenders ruin everything for everyone."

That may not be that old a saying.


knightnday wrote:

Eh .. I have kids. They are working to become "real people", but they still have a long way to go, many more experiences to get and so on. Children are lovely creatures but they need a great deal more seasoning before they have the tools necessary to handle a great many of things a standard life, let alone an adventuring life, would bring.

And this isn't about playing Harry alongside Hermoine and Ron and having adventures. This is Harry in the first book, Dumbledore, Snape and Hagrid wandering off for adventures.

Editted to add: And are the other adventurers OK with trusting their life to someone who is younger than the socks the dwarf has on?

isn't this the same as a 147 year old elf, teaming up with a 15 year old half orc?


Mikaze wrote:

This thread got dark fast.

But like the old saying goes: "Sex offenders ruin everything for everyone."

That may not be that old a saying.

I think you just said it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?

It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.

I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.

They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.

If I were a parent, I'd probably be even more uncomfortable with PCs who'd willingly allow a child to go into combat against things that can tear an adult to shreds.

Dumbledore must make you uncomfortable then.

Considering throwing kids into danger while keeping a spare chosen one in reserve(Neville) was his MO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?

It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.

I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.

They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.

If I were a parent, I'd probably be even more uncomfortable with PCs who'd willingly allow a child to go into combat against things that can tear an adult to shreds.

Dumbledore must make you uncomfortable then.

Considering throwing kids into danger while keeping a spare chosen one in reserve(Neville) was his MO.

righteous and pointed!

Edit: Also, I don't think it was the OPs intent to be a parented child… more than likely and orphan or bastard.
Otherwise a child wouldn't go out adventuring… he'd be at home waiting for mommy to make his favorite soup.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?

It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.

I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.

They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.

If I were a parent, I'd probably be even more uncomfortable with PCs who'd willingly allow a child to go into combat against things that can tear an adult to shreds.

Dumbledore must make you uncomfortable then.

Considering throwing kids into danger while keeping a spare chosen one in reserve(Neville) was his MO.

I didn't notice that until book 6 or 7, but once I did, it made me pretty uncomfortable. I can see the argument that he was doing what he had to do, but it's still pretty dark, and sometimes the necessity is rather iffy.


Whether or not the child is allowed, should a child (8 years old as I recall) have some sort of mechanical penalty for their age. I think this ended up being the concern of the OP


knightnday wrote:
Whether or not the child is allowed, should a child (8 years old as I recall) have some sort of mechanical penalty for their age. I think this ended up being the concern of the OP

Given that 8 years olds are less developed mentally and physically by a pretty big margin, it's certainly justifiable, but I am the last person to be demanding that things follow the laws of physics and biology in game.


Pendagast wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Eh .. I have kids. They are working to become "real people", but they still have a long way to go, many more experiences to get and so on. Children are lovely creatures but they need a great deal more seasoning before they have the tools necessary to handle a great many of things a standard life, let alone an adventuring life, would bring.

And this isn't about playing Harry alongside Hermoine and Ron and having adventures. This is Harry in the first book, Dumbledore, Snape and Hagrid wandering off for adventures.

Editted to add: And are the other adventurers OK with trusting their life to someone who is younger than the socks the dwarf has on?

isn't this the same as a 147 year old elf, teaming up with a 15 year old half orc?

Yes, it certainly is. I've seen characters and players that were less than thrilled to travel with what they considered children even though they were considered adults by their race and culture. Actual children would be worse for those folks.


knightnday wrote:
Whether or not the child is allowed, should a child (8 years old as I recall) have some sort of mechanical penalty for their age. I think this ended up being the concern of the OP

So far I have only seen good reasons for stat penalties. The class restrictions make little sense.


Mikaze wrote:

This thread got dark fast.

But like the old saying goes: "Sex offenders ruin everything for everyone."

That may not be that old a saying.

Indeed. Can't believe it is, since for a large part, until relatively recently the view was innocent until proven guilty towards pedophilia, and now it's more along the lines of a "Guilty until proven innocent."

Whether this is an improvement I will not comment on, and I recommend that nobody else does.

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Whether or not the child is allowed, should a child (8 years old as I recall) have some sort of mechanical penalty for their age. I think this ended up being the concern of the OP

So far I have only seen good reasons for stat penalties. The class restrictions make little sense.

Yeah, the stat penalties, while annoying, I'd be somewhat willing to accept. The class restriction is what really annoyed me the most, since there are no arcane spellcaster NPC class.


knightnday wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Eh .. I have kids. They are working to become "real people", but they still have a long way to go, many more experiences to get and so on. Children are lovely creatures but they need a great deal more seasoning before they have the tools necessary to handle a great many of things a standard life, let alone an adventuring life, would bring.

And this isn't about playing Harry alongside Hermoine and Ron and having adventures. This is Harry in the first book, Dumbledore, Snape and Hagrid wandering off for adventures.

Editted to add: And are the other adventurers OK with trusting their life to someone who is younger than the socks the dwarf has on?

isn't this the same as a 147 year old elf, teaming up with a 15 year old half orc?
Yes, it certainly is. I've seen characters and players that were less than thrilled to travel with what they considered children even though they were considered adults by their race and culture. Actual children would be worse for those folks.

I hate playing with gnomes, every gnome I've ever seen played is ridiculous and childish.

My current group has a gnome, he's an archeologist.
He hides, and chitters and plays naive, even in combat.
If this person/character were part of my community I would protect and defend him without being annoyed, but I wouldn't bring him to thistle top to fight the witch king either.

Im slightly more tolerant of halflings.
I played a halfling fighter in Council of thieves , simply because I wanted to play, basically, frodo, AFTER gollum bit off his finger (dark and grizzled, with an air of being disturbed)

but a lot of halflings get played just like gnomes.

I think that most people who would play a child character, if they could, gravitate toward the gnome/halfling characters.

for me it's not a "Im uncomfortable because your character isn't nearly as old as mine"
but more how that character is played.

What bigs me more is the 15 year old half orc with the same intelligence as my adult elf, gets the same skills points, traits and feats….

which then invokes the weirdo thought of how long do elves breast feed for?
Potty train?
Is an elf 49 before he can feed himself, or does mommy still need to cut up his lemmas bread so he doesn't choke?


I don't think it's a matter of age always equates better, but I do think adult equals better than kid in the instance of the same person.

Hear me out.

For any instance of comparison between two things to be valid from a scientific standpoint, you need to eliminate all extraneous variables to the degree in which it is possible. Where you cannot eliminate variables, you introduce random sampling to average things out. It's all statistics and science. This is why when they test new drugs they get as large of a random sample as possible, eliminate outliers, etc. They want to make sure it is the one changed factor, the drug or the placebo, that causes any discovered changes, not random chance or circumstance or the like.

Because of this kind of thing you can't compare one kid to another adult. That changes too many variables. You have to compare one kid to himself or herself as an adult. In those instances, I can't see the kid being better... the adult has all the knowledge the kid had, much more experience, and a physically superior body.

Those 8 year old black belts are, by and large if they continue the exact same regimen of training, much more advanced in their capabilities as adults. If they don't continue that same training then you've thrown a monkey wrench in the gears; the variable of training. You can't say for sure whether it is age or lack of training which affects competence.

The other option is to compare a completely random (not hand-picked from certain examples) group of kids to an equally random group of adults. Again, the situation in this instance will remain the same. The adults will trump the kids, mentally and physically, hands down.

Ender's game was thrown out as an example of kids who are superior to the adults around them. But if you continue the series, those same kids, as teenagers and later adults, still have their tactical brilliance, etc., but have grown new skill sets and refined their existing skills. Bean constantly outsmarts his kids in one of the latest books, for example.

There may be kids that are better than many if not most adults, but they're not better than their own adult selves.

Beethoven is an example of a prodigy. But I'm pretty sure his most memorable compositions were not written when he was 11.

That being said...

A 20 int wizard is an example of the peak of natural untrained (at least untrained enough to get a +1 stat bonus at 4th level, etc) human intellectual ability as an adult. Said 20 int wizard is an example of that child prodigy as an adult so the idea that there could be a superior version of this as a kid is laughable.

In Pathfinder many players choose to create characters which may have a 20 int, but as a representative of the population of Golarion (or whatever world you choose) these individuals are very far to the right on the ol' bell curve of averages. Your "reasonably smart, well trained, but NOT a prodigy" wizard is the guy with a 14-16 int. The rare child prodigies are already represented...by their adult selves.

So, based on that, it's my opinion that it's not unreasonable to nerf kids. Because seriously, compared to their own adult counterparts, kids ARE nerfed.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

why are people still talking about this? haven't people realized that there is no inherently right or wrong answer yet?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
why are people still talking about this? haven't people realized that there is no inherently right or wrong answer yet?

Heh. We could say that about every thread on these boards. But then we'd have nothing to talk about.


Vagabonds. wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:

People keep talking about adepts. Adepts, as far as I can see, are divine casters. Wizards are not divine casters. I suppose one could play an adept under the "child" rules and then switch to wizard at age 20, but that would not seem to me to be a logical progression, and the former adept would lose all his divine casting abilities, I think.

If we read the OP question as: "if the GM is going to allow child players (i.e., younger than the game's expected "minimum" age per the CRB) ought he to follow the rules for child players, or should he do something else?" then my answer is "that's up to the GM" (as is whether to allow child players at all). In my campaigns (if I had any <g>) it would take a very special situation for me to allow child players. I can't say I would never allow it, but frankly, right now I can't see a situation where I would.

The first part was pretty much my entire annoyance. If I could have actually had her be a Arcane caster, then I wouldn't mind. The issue is that there ARE no arcane NPC classes, which is why I was rather annoyed by these rules.

And yeah, I have to agree with your later thing now, after I simmered down for a while. I'd ask to close the thread, but I can't help but be enthralled by the arguments, and watching the arguments from both sides. It's rather entertaining, kinda wish I brought popcorn, though I admit the calling all gamers pedophiles strikes me as incredibly stupid, due to a severe lack of data. Providing data would be interesting.

As for how I'd play her, somewhat like a young, immature 17 year old, who is incredibly bitter as to the fact that NOBODY really trusts her, and is VERY hypocritical. She'd be very arrogant, with a feeling that she can do anything (This would, predictably, get crushed as she went along). Her age would get in her way more than anything else.

And yeah, they really are judgmental of them, aren't they? The DM is rather nice, but is a very, VERY raw focused from a lot of PFS. And does not allow...

If your DM says you won't ever be allowed to retrain to get rid of those NPC class levels, then you need to decide right now whether or not to make a different character for now (and save the young character idea for another campaign later on) or find another table. There's nothing to be gained by playing "chicken" with the DM right out of the gate.

That being said, if your DM really is adamant about keeping things RAW, and if they were the one that brought up the young rules from Ultimate Campaign, they are being hypocritical if they turn around and deny you access to another rule (retraining) from the same exact book. I'm just not sure there's anything to be gained by debating it though. I tend to favor the path of least resistance, which in this case is rolling a new char and shelving the original idea for a later date or different table. Good luck with whatever you decide! =]


thegreenteagamer wrote:

I don't think it's a matter of age always equates better, but I do think adult equals better than kid in the instance of the same person.

Hear me out.

For any instance of comparison between two things to be valid from a scientific standpoint, you need to eliminate all extraneous variables to the degree in which it is possible. Where you cannot eliminate variables, you introduce random sampling to average things out. It's all statistics and science. This is why when they test new drugs they get as large of a random sample as possible, eliminate outliers, etc. They want to make sure it is the one changed factor, the drug or the placebo, that causes any discovered changes, not random chance or circumstance or the like.

Because of this kind of thing you can't compare one kid to another adult. That changes too many variables. You have to compare one kid to himself or herself as an adult. In those instances, I can't see the kid being better... the adult has all the knowledge the kid had, much more experience, and a physically superior body.

Those 8 year old black belts are, by and large if they continue the exact same regimen of training, much more advanced in their capabilities as adults. If they don't continue that same training then you've thrown a monkey wrench in the gears; the variable of training. You can't say for sure whether it is age or lack of training which affects competence.

The other option is to compare a completely random (not hand-picked from certain examples) group of kids to an equally random group of adults. Again, the situation in this instance will remain the same. The adults will trump the kids, mentally and physically, hands down.

Ender's game was thrown out as an example of kids who are superior to the adults around them. But if you continue the series, those same kids, as teenagers and later adults, still have their tactical brilliance, etc., but have grown new skill sets and refined their existing skills. Bean constantly outsmarts his kids in one of...

*You hear audible applause*

Bravo. Bravo. Well done applying science. Though I suppose the issue I had was mostly to due with the class restriction. Though, you could argue that a +1 to most of her abilities would suffice to show her increased potential as she leveled up.

Bandw2 wrote:
why are people still talking about this? haven't people realized that there is no inherently right or wrong answer yet?

No, but I personally enjoy watching people throw things around each other. And having no inherently right or wrong answer, I think, is the whole reason why this is still going on.


My argument was counter to the arguments made by other posters, Vagabonds, and their statements that children are just as capable as adults, etc. I have no real argument in regard to limitations of classes as it is...had their been an int-based NPC caster, I would qualify that their limited training in comparison to a true wizard is representative of a child's limited training, etc., but...well there's no "apprentice wizard" class. I would personally as a GM modify the adept to be int based, but I still don't think it's wrong to hold to the rules as written.

If you would like to respond to one of my posts actually very specifically directed at you, however, perhaps you would like to answer my original question quite a few pages back. I'll paraphrase, so you don't have to search:

What do you hope to attain by getting the community to possibly rally behind your opinion that you have been wronged? Do you honestly think it will change your GM's mind?

His decision has been rendered. Whether it's wrong or not, it's what you've been offered.


thegreenteagamer wrote:

My argument was counter to the arguments made by other posters, Vagabonds, and their statements that children are just as capable as adults, etc. I have no real argument in regard to limitations of classes as it is...had their been an int-based NPC caster, I would qualify that their limited training in comparison to a true wizard is representative of a child's limited training, etc., but...well there's no "apprentice wizard" class. I would personally as a GM modify the adept to be int based, but I still don't think it's wrong to hold to the rules as written.

If you would like to respond to one of my posts actually very specifically directed at you, however, perhaps you would like to answer my original question quite a few pages back. I'll paraphrase, so you don't have to search:

What do you hope to attain by getting the community to possibly rally behind your opinion that you have been wronged? Do you honestly think it will change your GM's mind?

His decision has been rendered. Whether it's wrong or not, it's what you've been offered.

Yeah, when I made it, I actually did it just for the sake of seeing people agree, which is one of the sadder parts of human instinct (Confirmation Bias). I'm not a smart person, if you can't tell, since, yeah, it WOULD have done nothing. Though the reason I didn't answer the question was to continue watching as things unfold, which, if nothing else, granted me insight into the other groups opinion, without having to have it shoved down my throat forcibly (Once more, not very smart.)


My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you were not smart. There's nothing intellectually wrong with wanting people to agree with you. It's moderately childish, but you've also shown maturity by admitting "duh, shouldn't have done that."

Again, sorry if I came across insulting your intelligence.


The child character's rule set was one of the DUMBEST things ever put out. It exists for one reason and one reason only to make people play adult characters without actually disallowing child characters. A character can go from level one to level twenty in a matter of months in a fast paced campaign so the idea an adolescent can't be a PC class is stupid. That being said if the DM is truly "enforcing" the child rules set then you are allowed to retrain those NPC class levels later.

houstonderek wrote:
All of those things are enough for me to say "no".

Here's the rub, you're honest you just say no. You don't pile on stupid restrictions to make the player say no.

Its perfectly okay for a DM to say no, however enforcing restrictions that make the option unusable is just being dishonest.


thegreenteagamer wrote:

My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you were not smart. There's nothing intellectually wrong with wanting people to agree with you. It's moderately childish, but you've also shown maturity by admitting "duh, shouldn't have done that."

Again, sorry if I came across insulting your intelligence.

Nah, you didn't insault it, nothing of the sort, really. You just pointed out the obvious, the rest was me. There is no need to blame yourself for me admiting my faults. And I think I'm inteligent, just in no way smart (Wis vs Int, reasoning vs learning and such.)


it isn't age that is relevant, it is education, experience, and what one does with their life that matters. the 8 year old black belt in his 20th year of life isn't inherently better because of his age, it is because he had 12 more years to devote to training to gain the equivalent of a 4th degree blackbelt as a possibility, assuming that child devoted 12 years to get his 4th degree

that same black belt could have actually grown weaker from decaying skill by gaining his 2nd degree at 12 with his mother realizing she can't afford the training anymore and making him an anemic and scrawny X-Box teenager. turning him into a washed up 20 year old has been with 8 years of Xbox to decay his practice

that same 8 year old black belt could have been bullied and grew tired of it at 16 and gave up his training, being 4 years of decayed training instead of 8. he could potentially be obese from eating twinkies to beat the pain of his bullying and his dead mother

we can't really measure future selves without measuring alternate paths

there are a variety of things that could happen, that could make the 8 year old blackbelt less competent rather than more competent and it usually leads to lifestyle changes

what matters, is mostly, what training you have done in the more recent years of your life. if something stops that 8 year old black belt from training, he won't be the 20 year old super 4th degree black belt, future selves have paths that could veer off course

as new experience is gained, the earliest experiences are lost, and ones attributes can change to match their new lifestyle

About the Exchange Referring to my Boyfriend and I:

as a couple whom had a habit of playing in gritty and grimdark dystopia campaigns as our primary group, we ended up playing our fair share of sexually abused child characters, but that is a habit we learned from dystopias. nowadays, we play less sexualized characters whom are older, but still generally small framed, because you don't need to be 12 to be pint sized and pass off the 'Moe' vibe from our favorite animes. a small framed girl in the equivalent to her mid twenties with a penchant for good skincare and taste for cute clothing is just fine. nowadays, loli is a descriptor for the size and proportion of our characters, not their literal age and we have had to learn to filter out the creepiness. nowadays, we use loli as a general term for any small framed female, child or adult, and prefer playing an adult whom is actually capable of making her own decisions while having the downside of being carded for liquor, movies, chocolate or comics, it adds a bit of roleplay to our characters, even if i need my boyfriend to read my white board for me and even if we share a profile. we used a lot of excuses that made us sound creepier than the harmless couple we really are, but we would never harm a child that way in reality. the creepy children are reserved for dystopias and post apocalyptic settings and generally are introduced with approval first. we also cut back on our eastern characters took on a europe and north america kick.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Whether or not the child is allowed, should a child (8 years old as I recall) have some sort of mechanical penalty for their age. I think this ended up being the concern of the OP

So far I have only seen good reasons for stat penalties. The class restrictions make little sense.

Stat penalties and size changes capture the biological differences pretty well. But how should you reflect the fact that kids haven't had as much time to train or even just experience the world? I think often they're "student adventurers" in the fiction examples.

Ideally this would mean some toned down version of the class where you get the spirit but not the full package. I think warrior does that for fighter pretty well, by the way. Depending what you think is the defining feature of a rogue, expert could be, too. The rest of it is an attempt to prevent this corner of the system from dominating the attention in Ultimate Campaign. They wanted to give some completeish guidance without taking several chapters to hash it out.

I know there's a 3PP apprentice classes product out there. The class restrictions are an abridged version of that. Is it perfect? No. But I think a smaller skill set is a more important feature of child characters than diminished ability scores. At least for my gut feel of the difference between kids and adults. You could also have the same breadth but less depth, but that's not how I see a prodigy going.

301 to 350 of 420 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Should DM's enforce the Child Characters ruleset? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.