This seems like a debate between the Simulationist approach (child characters should have the same advantages / disadvantages of a real child because that makes the game-world more plausible) versus the Gamist approach (child characters should be balanced with adult characters or omitted entirely).
Why is there a a template for young monsters/creatures?
Because the babies aren't as good/are different than the adults/full grown monsters.
There are already rule precedents set for it.
You want to ignore those rules for it, fine.
But you can't set the rules if you are the player, that's for the DM to do.
Dm, what are the rules for playing a child character?
It's the same as friday night poker, if you don't like the table rules (which often vary from table to table) don't play.
Again. Give me a source where the child version of anyone has been better than their young adult or older self.
Step 1) Standard Ghost
Step 2) Add the Young TemplateDone.
Or crawling through air vents. That'll work too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Teen Titans.
New mutants.
Correct me if Im wrong, but several of the new mutant characters, when he comic originated, were functionally adults (16-18) yet a few (like Magick) were 13-14 and she was clearly, originally naive and child-like.
Cypher also seemed extremely child-like and tender.
Cypher was killed too.
The apparent age of teen titans varied depending on the rendition, but is functionally a moot point since characters like robin had beaten/bested thousands of adult combatants before the team was even formed.
By the time Teen Titans is formed, Dick Grayson is nearly a full adult anyway (even tho the animated series reverses that quite a bit)
Also note that many of us first started playing this game at the age of 11 or 12 ourselves.
Pretty much the same maturity level of the proposed character.
I don't think there is anything disturbing or wrongbadfun about the concept of a child character.
Drew Barrymore in Firestarter comes to mind as well.
Pocahontas, according to popular myth/history was 12 (or possibly younger) when she went out with an all Adult expedition as their guide.
The modern American concept of what 'adult' is, is a little skewed.
14 was clearly marrying age for most of humanities existence.
and 14 year olds of yore were a lot less worldly with a lot less "woman" than modern ones (this is especially apparent even in my own life time)
However, even in fantasy tropes, comic books, or anything else you can find about powers, superheroes and or swords/sorcery
Children are less powerful/capable than their adult selves.
Ben10.
Excellent example.
Again. Give me a source where the child version of anyone has been better than their young adult or older self.Step 1) Standard Ghost
Step 2) Add the Young TemplateDone.
Or crawling through air vents. That'll work too.
Ghost kids dont grow up to be adult ghosts. That is the type of comparison he was talking about, not one of the corner cases where applying the young template is a bonus.
Also applying the young template does not automatically translate to a "child"
Example:
You can apply the young template to get a weaker version of ___ sort of like the lesser jabberwock which is not a baby or child jabberwock at all.
Again. Give me a source where the child version of anyone has been better than their young adult or older self.Step 1) Standard Ghost
Step 2) Add the Young TemplateDone.
Or crawling through air vents. That'll work too.
That doesn't make them better, that makes them different.
I'd also argue you can't add the young template to a ghost.
If a child died,in the right manner, it would be a ghost, not a young ghost.
Ghosts don't mate or grow young ghosts.
Well, we could look at the movie Looper.
Oh, and if it's the order the templates go on that bothers you, simple start with a Young(template 1) Human that turns into a Ghost(template 2) upon dying. Because of the mechanical advantage of being a Ghost with a higher Dex than the adult version of that same NPC, Its not -1 CR.
Again. Give me a source where the child version of anyone has been better than their young adult or older self.Step 1) Standard Ghost
Step 2) Add the Young TemplateDone.
Or crawling through air vents. That'll work too.
That doesn't make them better, that makes them different.
I'd also argue you can't add the young template to a ghost.
If a child died,in the right manner, it would be a ghost, not a young ghost.
Ghosts don't mate or grow young ghosts.
This is correct. It would likely use a commoner child made using the rules that the OP is complaining about, and then have the ghost template added on, which is different than the young template.
Well, we could look at the movie Looper.
** spoiler omitted **Oh, and if it's the order the templates go on that bothers you, simple start with a Young(template 1) Human that turns into a Ghost(template 2) upon dying. Because of the mechanical advantage of being a Ghost with a higher Dex than the adult version of that same NPC, Its not -1 CR.
That means the young looper made a heroic choice. That is different than a "child" , which the young looper was not, being better than his adult self.
... 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)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.
She's (or they're) referring to WotC's 3rd edition Unearthed Arcana, which WAS a collection of optional rules add-ons, not the 1st edition AD&D Unearthed Arcana, which was an extension/revision to the core game.
Also to the girl saying she's in her mid twenties but looks 10ish are you dating a guy named Colin by any chance?
nopies, i'm not, i'm dating a childhood friend named Tim, mid twenties, reads my whiteboard aloud for me, cooks for me, cleans, sews, covers my financial needs as best he can, he isn't a celebrity or anything, he is just a security guard at a grain silo in a desert farm town who gets paid room, board, and essentials in place of wages.
She's (or they're) referring to WotC's 3rd edition Unearthed Arcana, which WAS a collection of optional rules add-ons, not the 1st edition AD&D Unearthed Arcana, which was an extension/revision to the core game.... 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)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.
you are correct when you said She and correct when you mentioned which Unearthed Arcana i was referring to. i wish i could mail you a paper bag loaded with freshly harvested ears of corn, but it would expire before it would reach you, negating the efforts i would have attempted towards showing gratitude
|
I think what we're suffering from is a lack of NPC classes as odd as it sounds. Historically we've never reach the point at which we say I need to make an NPC wizard and don't just make an NPC with heroic class levels. I might actually appreciate a supplement with some new NPC classes or some NPC archetypes for some nice DM curve balls as well as some new variation for child characters.
I think we suffer from having NPC classes that are rubbish, in comparison to PC classes.
While I recognise that a Commoner may not be the best choice for going spelunking into the Darklands, and may not necessarily be justified in gaining 'adventurer' abilities, that doesn't explain why they don't gain other abilities of their own, that make them the best at what they do. Whatever 'Common' tasks they may be.
Free Skill Focus feats, rerolls, cheaper action economy, level-based competence bonuses, in their chosen jobs.
There's no reason why two brothers should be raised on a farm, one leave home to join the clergy, the other remain to work the farm.
Son 2 returns, having spent all his time praying, learning spells, domains, channeling, and still be as good (2+Int skill ranks) at farming as the son who stayed home and farmed 24/7.
Son 1 should have his own farming and animal handling abilities, different from Son 2's clerical abilities, but still quantifiable.
Warriors should gain free Teamwork feats, to represent their constant drill.
|
A child trained class is problematic. However if you wanted to play a child caster type class, maybe a child oracle or child sorcerer. Their powers just sorta show up, and could show up at any age really.
Another thing that might work well is a child summoner who's eidlon is her not so imaginary friend.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Fine, Bobby, you can play the 9-year-old Barbarian. Just stay in the back and try not to get hurt."
"COOL! Can I have a pet unicorn, too?!"
"OH FOR--...... fine. Whatever, can we start now?"
|
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.
OK, the problem here is that we only have one side of the discussion. The problem is that we honestly don't know what the GM has in store for you and for all we know he has a arc that would fit you character transforming into a full fledged PC.
With retraining rules, you could strip out all of your NPC classes and be caught up with everyone else.
My suggestion is simple. talk to the GM and let him know your concerns. Ask him how he sees you staying a NPC class and how you will transition out.
Before you say no, make sure your not missing out on something that could be cool.
I'm with the group that said, that IF your DM doesn't want you to play a child he should outright say no and not bother with the ruleset. However, if he's merely playing by the book, doesn't really care, and you're very much into the character, I'd say take what you can get.
Realistically, I can understand why a DM would be apprehensive about a kid being in the setting. First being, why would a group of experienced veterans take in a kid? Even if he's a kid, you're essentially saying your character is ok with allowing the kid to be in lethal harms way against all manner of vile things. The DM may even be uncomfortable detailing, even with vague story, how the kid was hurt / knocked unconscious / possibly killed. Imagine if the DM wanted to throw in a succubus as a boss creature? After all of that could come the worry of role-play.
This isn't to say I'm against you or anyone else playing a kid, heck I had a few concepts for it myself, one of which my DM shot down, the other I haven't brought up. While in those concepts the harm thing could be somewhat mitigated (not completely or maybe at all of course), I can understand completely if a DM says no.
All that being said, have you considered an adult at the lowest age possible, perhaps they ran away, got lost or was lured away by fey or other creatures and has a mindset like that of a child socially? He could be well spoken and intelligent through books, but his mannerisms, to an extent how he speaks and how he approaches and talks to people. You'd be a more comfortable age to deal with harmful things, but have the general flavor of a kid to an extent. I mean, I realize you're probably going for a child prodigy, but for wizards, even someone in their twenties reaching mid levels could be considered a prodigy. At least with how many old wizards there are.
|
As a reference for in game reasons why DMs may not feel it fits.
Flavour text for wizards states it takes years of study. Stating its a child prodigy doesn't change that. Adult wizards with 20 intelligence are still older than the average adventurer if you use the age rolling mechanic in the core book. Same intelligence as your prodigy.
Scorecars don't generally come into their power until puberty, according to fluff from their class. We're talking 11 years old or more. Even then, it's unpredictable and dangerous, nothing like the controlled use of power the mechanics give you.
Clerics, by the age roller and some of the fluff around them, are also older in age categories. It takes time to study and learn the rituals and such of your church.
Things I could see working as "younger" versions might be oracles and witches. This is when something else takes hold of you and uses you for power in a bargain of some sort.
Also, if the campaign was running along the lines of post appocalypse, or some similar traumatic theme, then a child character may well work.
But it's still the GMs call completely.
I'm with the group that said, that IF your DM doesn't want you to play a child he should outright say no and not bother with the ruleset. However, if he's merely playing by the book, doesn't really care, and you're very much into the character, I'd say take what you can get.
Realistically, I can understand why a DM would be apprehensive about a kid being in the setting. First being, why would a group of experienced veterans take in a kid? Even if he's a kid, you're essentially saying your character is ok with allowing the kid to be in lethal harms way against all manner of vile things. The DM may even be uncomfortable detailing, even with vague story, how the kid was hurt / knocked unconscious / possibly killed. Imagine if the DM wanted to throw in a succubus as a boss creature? After all of that could come the worry of role-play.
This isn't to say I'm against you or anyone else playing a kid, heck I had a few concepts for it myself, one of which my DM shot down, the other I haven't brought up. While in those concepts the harm thing could be somewhat mitigated (not completely or maybe at all of course), I can understand completely if a DM says no.
All that being said, have you considered an adult at the lowest age possible, perhaps they ran away, got lost or was lured away by fey or other creatures and has a mindset like that of a child socially? He could be well spoken and intelligent through books, but his mannerisms, to an extent how he speaks and how he approaches and talks to people. You'd be a more comfortable age to deal with harmful things, but have the general flavor of a kid to an extent. I mean, I realize you're probably going for a child prodigy, but for wizards, even someone in their twenties reaching mid levels could be considered a prodigy. At least with how many old wizards there are.
If you read above, there is already plenty of pre existing situations where child fantasy/hero characters have gotten in harms way and even killed even mingled with adult heroes/veterans.
Indian Jones/short roundBatman/Robin
Heck the entire cast of goonies!
NOT teenagers… children.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you read above, there is already plenty of pre existing situations where child fantasy/hero characters have gotten in harms way and even killed even mingled with adult heroes/veterans.
Indian Jones/short round
Batman/Robin
Heck the entire cast of goonies!NOT teenagers… children.
How does that effect his argument?
As a reference for in game reasons why DMs may not feel it fits.
Flavour text for wizards states it takes years of study. Stating its a child prodigy doesn't change that. Adult wizards with 20 intelligence are still older than the average adventurer if you use the age rolling mechanic in the core book. Same intelligence as your prodigy.
Scorecars don't generally come into their power until puberty, according to fluff from their class. We're talking 11 years old or more. Even then, it's unpredictable and dangerous, nothing like the controlled use of power the mechanics give you.
Clerics, by the age roller and some of the fluff around them, are also older in age categories. It takes time to study and learn the rituals and such of your church.
Things I could see working as "younger" versions might be oracles and witches. This is when something else takes hold of you and uses you for power in a bargain of some sort.
Also, if the campaign was running along the lines of post appocalypse, or some similar traumatic theme, then a child character may well work.
But it's still the GMs call completely.
The base half-elf is 20 years, with a minimum of 3 years to study to become a 1st level wizard.
Technically, this means a half elf with an int of 11, could become a first level wizard at the ripe old age of 23.
I THINK the OPs argument is, a child prodigy, with the int of 20 could accomplish the same goal as someone of his race with a mere 11 int, in… half the time alive on Golarion.
So the argument is "I want to play a child prodigy that's 12, instead of 23, because I have a 20 INT"
Based upon the premise that the character being created is twice as smart as a person who has the minimum capability to accomplish this task. (i.e. graduating from apprenticeship and becoming a level 1 wizard, capable of casting level 1 spells)
Real world Doogie Hausers exist, having graduated a Masters program at harvard at the age of 12 n such.
Wizard school is the fantasy equivalent.
My argument, is that a 12 year old half elf, with the emotions, psychology, and body of an 8-9 year old human would have functional draw backs/limitations and that "making" the 12 year old half elf prodigy is actually USING "how to create an adult adventurer" character generation rules.
Child characters may not have as many build points to assign to stats, not as many skill points per level or not completed their training in their chosen character class yet.
This is my point, you are trying to use the rules set of creating adult characters, wanting all the trappings of making an adult character (including even HAVING a 20 Int) and then apply it to a character half the age and then hold your breath and have a tizzy if anyone suggests anything that you don't like about circumventing the creation of an adult character in the first place.
Under these circumstances, I might rule, "adult characters can have 20 points for character creation and child characters 10 or 15 points, you get the rest of the points when you reach adulthood, and the character is small in size, not medium" (or tiny if we talking about gnomes or halfling children)
You could technically still make a 20 INT child wizard with 10 build points
S 7 (-4)
D 10
C 8 (-2)
I 18 +2 = 20 (17)
W 9 (-1)
Ch 10
Then apply the small size to the character, giving you what would probably BE a child prodigy 12 year old half elf.
Not quite as wise, and physically much weaker than an adult.
When the character reaches 23, he can get the other 10 build points the adult characters had at level 1.
The main issue to me that is being missed overall is the minimum 3 years necessary to apprentice.
At age 12 the kid is finished,
Meaning a half elf would have had to start apprenticing at 9, which is functionally a 5 year old human.
5 years olds studying magic with dedication, long nights, no distractions…because… Dragons!
I think… if a kid had started THAT early studying magic… it would take him ALOT long to finish the studying and training.. because of how early he began, EVEN with a massive intelligence.
Which means he'd take the maximum number of years (18) to complete the training.
Starting at 5, and taking 18 years to complete, would make him….23!
The minimum age for a half elf 1st level wizard….
Think the game designers didn't already cover this one over Pizza back when they wrote this stuff?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
The problem with this is that it applies a modern Western societal attitude on an ostensibly Medieval milieu. As someone mentioned, or at least alluded to, upthread, the modern tendency to treat people as children until they reach some arbitrary age somewhere far north of puberty is very different from the reality of Medieval times. Even as recently as the 19th Century, young people who had at least reached puberty were treated as adults when they acted as adults - there was no arbitrary and rigid "age of majority", at least in some places (such as the American West). Naval midshipmen in the Royal Navy and US Navy of the late 18th and early 19th century could be as young as twelve.
Somebody said we don't have enough NPC classes. We don't, for example, have an NPC class that, using the "youth" rules, might make a start on being a bard, or a sorcerer, or, more pertinent to this thread, a wizard. I do think that a young person with a strong aptitude for music or some other bardic ability might well start as a sort of NPC bard (so we need some NPC class where he can do that). Same for a sorcerer. Wizard takes a lot more schooling, so I'm not sure that part of this character's back story makes sense, genius or not. But it might be possible to make an NPC class that fits, where this backstory makes sense. If we had that, I'd be okay with an 11 year old (10+1d6, according to the "youth" rules) "self taught" apprentice-level wizard, perhaps with an NPC class that doesn't gain access to anything above cantrips before second (or even third) level and advances slowing thereafter, converting to actual "wizard" when she reaches age 20. But as the rules now stand, a character younger than "minimum starting age" for his race won't be able to case any wizard spells. So such a character is going to spend some game years not doing much in the way of wizardly things.
Under a different ruleset, things would be different. I'd be inclined to try to work with a player who wants to go to the trouble to develop reasonable rules, up to a point, but I'm not going to rubber stamp something just because it fits what he wants to do. Bottom line, RAW, I don't think I'd allow this particular youngster at this age. Let him go to Hogwarts or a Golarion equivalent for a couple of years, and I'd be willing to reconsider. But I would not shoot down the idea on the grounds that "we don't do that to children in modern Western society".
|
|
Ed Reppert--
You do make a point about the sliding line where societies considered someone to be an adult or not, that I generally accept. In a society where 15-16 years old is considered adult-- then I don't have a big problem with someone who wants to play a character of that age. As I recall, perhaps incorrectly, though-- folks were suggesting the idea of playing a character who was 7 or 8 years old, or thereabouts...
Back to the ancient society's viewpoints: yes, midshipmen and powder monkeys on old wooden ships of war might be as young as 12-- but they weren't younger than that, generally speaking, AND the presence of young men (12 years old or so) on board ship is partly a feature of warships of that time being home, place of work, and many other things besides just "site of battle" to their crews. You still don't find prepubescent children on ships of war in that day and age.
Looking a bit farther into the past, and into land warfare-- young nobles in training to become future knights would start out as pages at age 7 or so, and they might accompany their master's household on campaign... but pages were clearly considered non-combatants, would not take up arms on the battlefield, and would usually be protected from the usual excesses and violence on campaign. One would not become a squire, and theoretically or practically a combatant, who might accompany his knight onto the field, until age 14 or thereabouts-- as you rightly note, by that point, a young adult in the eyes of his society, not a child any longer.
Children (meaning those that even on the sliding scale of ancient societies were not yet considered adults-- definitely including those who hadn't reached puberty yet), would not be accompanying war-bands into battle. You might find a child accompanying a Nordic merchant on trading voyages, but you wouldn't find one getting a seat on the longship with a crew mounting a viking raid.
So-- while I do acknowledge the point that in the past, one was considered an adult sooner than one is considered to be an adult now-- I might accept a teenaged character in that light, but I do stand by what I said earlier regarding child characters (as well as how adult characters may look after and treat child characters-- and whether such treatment could be considered "good" or not).
As a step back to my real-world concerns and disgust for certain issues-- I'll even admit that in our day and age, 16 year olds choosing of their own free will to pick up guns and fight, does not horrify me all that much above and beyond the general horrors of war (that's already bad enough) -- they're old enough for me to respect that they can make their own decisions, and if they choose the path of war, to a large extent it's on them (16+ IS considered adult in much of the rest of the the world, including large parts of Europe)... it's children, not young adults, on the battlefield, it's things like the 12 and under crowd getting used as cannon-fodder, and ten year olds being used as "grenade delivery systems", that really bugs me.
Kerney--
Thank you for your reply earlier. I very much appreciate the respect you're willing to show for the concerns of others, including myself.
To answer the title: No.
The class restrictions are dumb. I do think having children start at a lower point buy and then gain points over-time to be a good way to show development.
Children are weaker than adults in almost every capacity. I don't see how that means they should be NPC class restricted.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the title: No.
The class restrictions are dumb. I do think having children start at a lower point buy and then gain points over-time to be a good way to show development.
Children are weaker than adults in almost every capacity. I don't see how that means they should be NPC class restricted.
The rules state the acceptable ages for a game. Anything outside this it says seek permission from the DM.
The current rules written by Paizo for characters younger than the accepted norm are the rules this GM used.
Everything the DM did in this case is within the rules as written.
What most of the naysayers are suggesting are house rules in stead. You're effectively saying not to enforce official rules, written for this exact purpose.
If that is how you feel, then don't play that concept in this game system.
Simple.
To answer the title: No.
The class restrictions are dumb. I do think having children start at a lower point buy and then gain points over-time to be a good way to show development.
Children are weaker than adults in almost every capacity. I don't see how that means they should be NPC class restricted.
The rules state the acceptable ages for a game. Anything outside this it says seek permission from the DM.
The current rules written by Paizo for characters younger than the accepted norm are the rules this GM used.
Everything the DM did in this case is within the rules as written.
What most of the naysayers are suggesting are house rules in stead. You're effectively saying not to enforce official rules, written for this exact purpose.
If that is how you feel, then don't play that concept in this game system.
Simple.
The question in the title is should. I don't feel that the child rules are very good at all. If you are going to try something along those lines, you are better off making up your own rules.
A GM is the rules, while that means they are always right about the rules, it also means they are accountable for all rulings. If they decide to use the Paizo child rules, then that is on them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that is how you feel, then don't play that concept in this game system.
Simple.
But...if there's anything I've learned reading the boards, it's that nothing is more important than a player's concept. The entire ruleset, the GM, the story being presented, EVERYTHING must bend it's will to the player concept, for if the player does not get to play his/her concept as is, unaltered and completely as viable as anything else available...
then we're no better than MMO players. (*gasp*)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it cool to hang out with eight year olds, now? Man, I must be getting old.
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.
Except in Yu Yu Hakushu, which flat-out states that its main character will never be more powerful than he is currently at age 16. To the point where its even implied that if he ever tries to harness the same level of power at a later point in his life, his body will temporarily rearrange itself into its younger form in order to harness that level power.
We see another, significantly older main character do the same exact thing moments before this is explained in the story.
In a nutshell, all of your "conceivable notions" of what people can and should be able to do at a given time are thrown out of the window wherever fantasy is involved. Not even magic spells, but fantasy in general. Because that's what this is. Fantasy. Not, "I'm going to adhere to some of the real world's rules some of the time and then bend others so hard than they snap in two," other times.
Example: Falling Damage rules. Terminal velocity is, well, terminal in the real world. No matter how many Hit Dice you have. Why does "realism" say that my level 5 character can survive falling past terminal velocity without any serious repercussions but my child PC is forced to stick to Non-Player Characters classes despite being a Player Character and being one of the heroes of the story?
...
Example: Falling Damage rules. Terminal velocity is, well, terminal in the real world. No matter how many Hit Dice you have. Why does "realism" say that my level 5 character can survive falling past terminal velocity without any serious repercussions but my child PC is forced to stick to Non-Player Characters classes despite being a Player Character and being one of the heroes of the story?
Because there are printed rules for doing so and the GM chose to use them. Nobody is forcing you to play at his table. If the GM won't let you use the concept you want, find one who will.
A quote by Clementine from The Walking Dead Season 2 (she's about 12 years old) that I like: "Everyone underestimates me."
You should meet the SheWolf. Real name, Faith Smith. Age, 13. Best zombie killer in the world.
John Ringo does it again. :-)
Example: Falling Damage rules. Terminal velocity is, well, terminal in the real world. No matter how many Hit Dice you have. Why does "realism" say that my level 5 character can survive falling past terminal velocity without any serious repercussions but my child PC is forced to stick to Non-Player Characters classes despite being a Player Character and being one of the heroes of the story?
You do know that it's not called "terminal velocity" because it will kill you (although it almost surely will), right?
|
|
You do know that it's not called "terminal velocity" because it will kill you (although it almost surely will), right?
Example: Falling Damage rules. Terminal velocity is, well, terminal in the real world. No matter how many Hit Dice you have. Why does "realism" say that my level 5 character can survive falling past terminal velocity without any serious repercussions but my child PC is forced to stick to Non-Player Characters classes despite being a Player Character and being one of the heroes of the story?
I was going to say the same thing.
Terminal velocity is the point at which your air resistance prevents you from accelerating due to gravity. It is not the point at which you die.
People with parachute reach terminal velocity. People without parachutes also reach terminal velocity. One of the is just lower than the other and will cause little to no damage from the fall.
You do know that it's not called "terminal velocity" because it will kill you (although it almost surely will), right?
Example: Falling Damage rules. Terminal velocity is, well, terminal in the real world. No matter how many Hit Dice you have. Why does "realism" say that my level 5 character can survive falling past terminal velocity without any serious repercussions but my child PC is forced to stick to Non-Player Characters classes despite being a Player Character and being one of the heroes of the story?
It's called terminal velocity because at that point any gain in speed from gravity or momentum is negated, or rather terminated… the point at which no more speed can be reached.
And no, by the current rules set, I do not see how a fifth level character falling from THAT high could survive the fall, without magic or a special character class ability (slow fall, feather fall, levitate..something like that)
Humans age categories for adults start at 15+x, meaning you can play a 16 year old human and count as an adult in pathfinder.
The rules for age categories are a confusing one, because there are three different age categories in which characters start. The intuitive categories are much more conceivable for young characters to be played versus a trained class. That said, one can bypass the age restrictions on those classes very easily by either starting out a level in another class then multiclassing into the one you want, or retraining your first level into something else.
Kid rules are what they are, I personally find more issue with the fact that they are as restrictive as they are when they were advertised as being able to play some of the more iconic powerful children.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's called terminal velocity because at that point any gain in speed from gravity or momentum is negated, or rather terminated… the point at which no more speed can be reached.
And no, by the current rules set, I do not see how a fifth level character falling from THAT high could survive the fall, without magic or a special character class ability (slow fall, feather fall, levitate..something like that)
It should be noted that there are documented incidents of people falling, without a parachute, from great heights and surviving. The record, I think, was 33,000 feet.