"Available Classes: a young character does not have access to the same classes as adult characters. Not yet etc etc etc. As such, you can select only NPC classes while in this age category, beginning play and advancing in level as an adept, aristocrat, commoner, expert, or warrior, according to your interests and social background."
The question is...why? Why can't a kid be an Urban Ranger, or a Gunslinger, or a Mathmagician? You want to make it clear that the kid isn't as powerful as adults in the party, ok, but you could say that child PCs have to be at least a level behind the adults.
Or, you know, you could make kid-specific classes. The Bully(With his slingshot and club), The Nerd(With his Magic Missiles), etc etc.
I just don't see any reason for them to have to be NPC classes.
Sure. For non-hero characters.
Sure. For non-hero characters.We have a fundamental disagreement there, but that's ok. Wizards are incredibly rarely trained by the age of 16-17 in my book...if you want 12 year-olds fully trained, it's your call.
I don't see why two 4 level Wizards have to have had the same level of training. One could be better trained but slow, while another could just have like A Beautiful Mind thing going on.
The Adept works as a stepping stone to wisdom based divine casters -- but we have no Pathfinder counterparts to other types of casters. The magewright from Eberron for D&D 3.5 could do for wizards and magi. That still leaves several other types of spellcasters not covered by lesser NPC class versions.
|
I don't see why two 4 level Wizards have to have had the same level of training. One could be better trained but slow, while another could just have like A Beautiful Mind thing going on.Sure. For non-hero characters.We have a fundamental disagreement there, but that's ok. Wizards are incredibly rarely trained by the age of 16-17 in my book...if you want 12 year-olds fully trained, it's your call.
Sure. Again, it's your game.
Mind you, I largely don't care about Magic classes, so any argument I make following them probably isn't gonna make a lot of sense.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
From Paizo's blog:
Play Harry Potter. Or Arya Stark, or Aang the Last Airbender, or whomever your favorite young hero might be, with rules for playing young characters.
Paizo Blog: "You can play your favorite young wizard!"
Game Rule: "You can't play a young wizard."
The rules are a guideline (unless you're playing in Pathfinder Society games) so house rule anything you like. There's no reason you can't play Doogie Howser, child prodigy wizard graduating from "magic college" at 12, or have him as an NPC in a game if you really want to.
Let them. Personally, I'm using the Super Genius Guide to Apprentice Classes for children characters that are destined for PC greatness.
If I were to make a squire, I'd probably have him take levels in warrior. Or, the Squire archetypes in the Knights of Varisia. Or a 0-level Cavalier. When they hit their training's end, they'd end up being cavaliers via retraining or finished training in regards to level-0 characters. Got a lot of choices here I like.
Part of that is cool, but part of that also sounds like a lot of work.
Sure. For non-hero characters.We have a fundamental disagreement there, but that's ok. Wizards are incredibly rarely trained by the age of 16-17 in my book...if you want 12 year-olds fully trained, it's your call.
I have no problem with the restriction. The way I always understood it, Adepts aren't strictly Divine spellcasters, but a mix of Divine and Arcane, a kind of "whatever works" rough and ready basic Hedge Wizard, using a little bit of everything, and the "Divine" label on their magic was just a fudge for simplicity's sake, because so much of their magic IS Divine, but there's just too much of a blur between the two with Adepts to be able to readily separate what's what with their spells. Adepts, to me, represent what the very first spellcasters were probably like, a muddy mix of Divine and Arcane magic before a clear separation between them developed, when all magic-users were a mix of both, but lacking in the powerful spells they would later develop through greater insight from specializing in one kind of magic over the other.
So a young Adept becoming a full-fledged Wizard OR Cleric by retraining when he reaches adulthood would be a natural progression, as he learned to formalize his spellcasting procedures and pick which path wanted to follow.
I have a thing against young Wizards, myself. I think it's cheesy, and I'm not a fan of Harry Potter or that style of story. In my games, I have an age limit for Wizards or other learned spellcasters, and they are required to be at least in their mid-20s (or it's equivalent) before they can reach 1st level, as the humanoid brain hasn't even reached a level of development or physical maturity to be able to use magic until then. However, I allow the 3.5 Spellcasting Prodigy feat, and if a character has that then they can start as a 1st level Wizard as young as 16.
Sorcerers and other spontaneous casters are a different matter, however, as their magic comes from a different source, and has more to do with the soul than the mind. I don't put any kind of imitations on them.
Of course, this is in my own setting and not Golarion, and isn't strictly RAW, so I guess it's ultimately really not worth all that much.
From Paizo's blog:
Play Harry Potter. Or Arya Stark, or Aang the Last Airbender, or whomever your favorite young hero might be, with rules for playing young characters.Paizo Blog: "You can play your favorite young wizard!"
Game Rule: "You can't play a young wizard."
I asked James Jacobs if he thought Arya was a Rogue or an Expert. His answer was Rogue.
Personally, I would be okay with the rule if the rules didn't recommend to remove the age modifiers when the Youth retrains into an Adult. That is not a rule that I will be keeping in my game. You keep the aging modifiers until you're old enough to grow out of them on your own!
Also, these rules basically don't allow child geniuses to exist. Or child prodigies. Does anyone remember that old Youtube Video of the 4 year old kid who was trained from birth to be an athelete? He could bench press his father and was like Valeros-level ripped. How often do we hear stories about youths who go to college at the age of 12—15? That rule basically says this never happens, which is why it is a rule that I happily toss into the garbage heap in my games. Sucks to be a PFS player, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you wanna be young, play an orc! They're adults at the age of 12 :B
Good point Iorthol.
I saw a dm get really behind the child spellcaster idea. No one else liked it, but he was very enthused.
I couldn't get excited about killing the enemy sorcerer, when it was a kobold child. I didn't sign up for this!
A GM may grant a young character the option of passing into the adult age category early after achieving some noteworthy goal.
Now, your character is still, physically, age 9 or whatever. But he has achieved something noteworthy (survived an attack by a high level evil wizard, etc.), and is thus able to retrain his level in Commoner into something more suitable, like Wizard, and also then receive the benefits of an adult's Ability Scores.
Alternatively, the GM can house-rule this optional system into something more to their liking.
Harry enters the dungeon at age 9. Harry is killed by the first two goblins.
GG.
Harry Potter and the Being A Corpse.
|
Truthfully, this is the first time I've had aserious problem with any of Paizo's rules. Not the low stats but the class restrictions---
And just because you don't like the idea of playing Harry Potter and Arya Stark doesn't mean someone else doesn't and if they are going to advertise the that they are going to creat rules for this they should deliver.
And even those against spellcaster characters should consider several examples--
1) Kid with an imaginary friend/pet. Think Calvin and Hobbs as a pathfinder Summoner/Eidolon pair.
2) What other worldly thingie wouldn't love to get their hands/claws/tentacles/whatever into a young child, begining their indoctrination into the witch/sorcerer/oracle classes early.
3) Arya Stark, as they mentioned is a rogue--going into the assasin prestige class.
Basically, they screwed up----majorly for the first time.
The class restriction is really meh... The choice of playing a young character, with all the minus, is already a step back and is more a ''background choice'' than a ''power gaming choice''. I would forget the class restriction if a player come with a good idea, but it's gonna be harder for some class.
For example, while a youg Oracle/ Sorcerer/ Witch could come in play with ease, it's harder for Wizard and Cleric (since they need more ''formal training'' than the former).
I think the rules for playing children are ill concived. But i am also somewhat puzzeled as to why we would need special rules for that, in the first place.
|
An Adept is an available NPC class and can take out an encounter single-handed with one casting of Sleep. They are also able to use the wands of CLW, and they can blast with a 5d4 Burning hands if they take the right traits and feats. At Level 1, this is MORE powerful than a standard Wizard or Cleric, because the versatility of the spell list is more useful than the as-yet non-existant more spells per day.
An Adept is an available NPC class and can take out an encounter single-handed with one casting of Sleep. They are also able to use the wands of CLW, and they can blast with a 5d4 Burning hands if they take the right traits and feats. At Level 1, this is MORE powerful than a standard Wizard or Cleric, because the versatility of the spell list is more useful than the as-yet non-existant more spells per day.
With one spell(+stat bonus spells) and only 3 castings of cantrips at level 1 i dont think you can call them more powerfull that clerics and wizards. I think endelss cantrips and School/ domain powers/ arcane Bond/ armor professions are worth somthing.
How do you get CL 5 at level 1 with traits and feats?
But if you start a quest with a young character, you will not stay level 1 that long (and you loose some class flavor, likethe bloodline and the curse..). Sooner or later you will have to retrain Adept in something else, and you can't really wait some years to be able to get level in wizard.
|
|
You might take a look at Learning Curve: Apprentice-Level Characters from Tricky Owlbear Publishing
Apprentice-Level Characters allows players to (among other things!) start their adventuring career as a half-level PC and is perfect for creating realistic yet still playable young characters
|
|
An Adept is an available NPC class and can take out an encounter single-handed with one casting of Sleep. They are also able to use the wands of CLW, and they can blast with a 5d4 Burning hands if they take the right traits and feats. At Level 1, this is MORE powerful than a standard Wizard or Cleric, because the versatility of the spell list is more useful than the as-yet non-existant more spells per day.
To me it's not about power, it's about character concept. If I want a kid Summoner with an imaginary friend, I should have some options. Ayra Stark is a character who only makes sense as a kid. So is the creepy child who all these accidental deaths happen around and who is obviously using hexes.
It doesn't matter whether the adept is more powerful of not. It doesn't reflect the kind of young pcs and npcs I wish to create and who I encounter in fiction and history regularly.
|
|
How do you get CL 5 at level 1 with traits and feats?
My mistake, you can only get CL 4 on an adept. Human with the Gifted Adept Trait (Burning Hands) for +1 CL, and the two feats going to Spell Focus (Evocation) and Spell Specialization (Burning Hands).
On a sorcerer, you can get CL 5 by going Tattooed Sorcerer for the free Varisian Tattoo.
Of course, this becomes obsolete in a few levels, but it is deadly at level 1.
|
|
How do you get CL 5 at level 1 with traits and feats?My mistake, you can only get CL 4 on an adept. Human with the Gifted Adept Trait (Burning Hands) for +1 CL, and the two feats going to Spell Focus (Evocation) and Spell Specialization (Burning Hands).
On a sorcerer, you can get CL 5 by going Tattooed Sorcerer for the free Varisian Tattoo.
Of course, this becomes obsolete in a few levels, but it is deadly at level 1.
Rather frightening.
Inn general, we, as a society, do not like to make games of putting kids in harms way. I know the devs here generally share this view.
So, just houserule it.
Why is this even a rule? I can't imagine myself as playing a 12 years old wizard, but why ban it? Yet another pointless restriction.
From Paizo's blog:
Play Harry Potter. Or Arya Stark, or Aang the Last Airbender, or whomever your favorite young hero might be, with rules for playing young characters.Paizo Blog: "You can play your favorite young wizard!"
Game Rule: "You can't play a young wizard."
That same line also prefaces that section of Chapter 3. The book literally says:
"You can play Harry Potter! But you can't play a wizard. Not until Book 4, anyway."
And while I could understand the logic with the summoner, paladin, and even the cavalier, what about the rogue? You know, that intuitive class that you're supposed to be able to figure out on your own?
Plus isn't the point of having codified rules for Young Characters to allow players to play young characters? I mean, prior to Ultimate Campaign if I wanted an NPC to be young, I described him as such and that's that. The only people who need age category rules are the players, yet this option doesn't let them take levels in PLAYER classes?
the sad part is (and yes i'm necroing the thread, bite me) the rules for starting as a aristocrat or expert are base 8 +1d6 years... but intuitive classes are only 1d4. if I can learn to be a rogue from 15 to 16.. pretty sure I could learn it from 8-9 children are often trained as pick-pockets and thieves, yes you could say most of those are experts or commoners... but we're talking about extra-ordinary people anyway. :P why does being 15 magically make a human able to start learning a class when younger children are actually -better- at learning new things. fail rule is failing
The thing to realize with the young character rules, is they are a temporary situation. The restrictions do not go away when a character attains a certain age, they go away when the character ascends to adulthood - this is, more often than not, event based, and not time based. Using the Arya Stark example, she, as soon as she left King's Landing, was well on her way to adulthood, regardless of her actual chronological age, and as such, would be picking up those Slayer levels pretty quickly. Her sister, on the other hand, is quite a bit older, but doesn't even begin to actually resemble adulthood until she's alone with Littlefinger in the Eyrie.
A GM may grant a young character the option of passing into the adult age category early after achieving some noteworthy goal. Potential accomplishments include surpassing your instructor's skill, defeating a powerful adult foe, overcoming a threat to your home, or completing a lengthy journey.