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.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)
aw the joys of modern medicine.
Because the fall can do less damage than a 5th level character can have. Duh.
NO DUH, it doesn't. To fall far enough to actually REACH terminal velocity it would NOT do less damage than what a 5th level character can have,,, DUH
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.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)
Ummm I think you're thinking of urban myth.
Im a former paratrooper. I don't recall anyone falling for nearly 6 miles and living.
However, I have personally fallen hundreds of feet from a moving helicopter and Im still alive (fell through trees which slowed fall)
AND I have personally witnessed a guy fall 2500 feet with a failed parachute, who didn't get his reserve out in time and hit so hard he bounced nearly six feet in the air and hit again.
He jumped out about a minute later yelling "Im ok! Im ok!"
No you're not buddy, lie back down, and wait for the Evac to arrive.
he did not however reach terminal velocity, mainly due to his body position, he also fell flat on his back, with the parachute pack still fully packed up… which might have cushioned a lot (and caused the bounce?)
falling damage maxes out at 20d6 (what the rules set considers terminal velocity)
so the max damage from that would be 120 damage… far exceeding your 5th level character.
the average damage is 60, possible but not likely for a 5th level character to survive, AND would still need to make a save (and likely fail) from massive damage.
Using the current rules available in THIS system) that fall COULD kill a 10-15th level character.
Typical human terminal velocity is reached between 1200-1800 ft of falling, for a limp body.
at 1d6 per 10 feet, tat would be 120d6-180d6, if it weren't for the 20d6 max.
but the same rules that say there is a 20d6 max for falling, ALSO say there i a min age of 23 for a half elf wizard.
|
Because the fall can do less damage than a 5th level character can have. Duh.NO DUH, it doesn't. To fall far enough to actually REACH terminal velocity it would NOT do less damage than what a 5th level character can have,,, DUH
He said 'can', not 'would'.
Ummm I think you're thinking of urban myth.
Im a former paratrooper. I don't recall anyone falling for nearly 6 miles and living.
everyone got real snappy at me mentioning modern medicine. the cases i know of involves several broken bones that would have killed the person if he didn't have medical help.
everyone got real snappy at me mentioning modern medicine. the cases i know of involves several broken bones that would have killed the person if he didn't have medical help.
Everyone? Only two people directly replied, and one of them gave a fantasy explanation of rolling nat 1's on the damage. It seems more people are saying that willing falling thousands of feet is a bad idea.
everyone got real snappy at me mentioning modern medicine. the cases i know of involves several broken bones that would have killed the person if he didn't have medical help.Everyone? Only two people directly replied, and one of them gave a fantasy explanation of rolling nat 1's on the damage. It seems more people are saying that willing falling thousands of feet is a bad idea.
1. I'm sorry wraith but your not part of everyone anymore. :P
2. i never even mentioned willing falling. all i commented on is the fact that these people are able to survive and recover, due to technology.
everyone got real snappy at me mentioning modern medicine. the cases i know of involves several broken bones that would have killed the person if he didn't have medical help.Everyone? Only two people directly replied, and one of them gave a fantasy explanation of rolling nat 1's on the damage. It seems more people are saying that willing falling thousands of feet is a bad idea.1. I'm sorry wraith but your not part of everyone anymore. :P
2. i never even mentioned willing falling. all i commented on is the fact that these people are able to survive and recover, due to technology.
I got your point, but I was also saying that nobody really seemed to be angry at you. :)
Because the fall can do less damage than a 5th level character can have. Duh.NO DUH, it doesn't. To fall far enough to actually REACH terminal velocity it would NOT do less damage than what a 5th level character can have,,, DUHHe said 'can', not 'would'.
Here you go.Ummm I think you're thinking of urban myth.
Im a former paratrooper. I don't recall anyone falling for nearly 6 miles and living.
Read the Article,
SHE didn't fall, she was in the plane that crashed from 33,000 feet.
Entirely different than a person falling OUT of plane and hitting the ground with her body alone.
That's surviving a plane crash, not surviving a fall.
There are ALOT of people who have done that.
Followed by FURTHER down in the article:
"In January 2009 German ARD radio correspondent Peter Hornung-Andersen together with German journalist Tim van Beveren and Czech journalist Pavel Theiner published a report based on newly found documents, mainly from the Czech Civil Aviation Authority and the Czech Republic's National Archive, concluding that it was "extremely probable" that the plane had been shot down by mistake by the Czechoslovak Air Force.[7] They claim that the plane broke up only a few hundred metres above the ground, not the 10,000 metres claimed by the official investigation.[8] This claim is allegedly backed by secret reports in which several eyewitnesses said that they saw Vulović's plane flying below the clouds before it crashed and maps drawn by Czechoslovak investigators showing that the largest parts of the plane were found in an area that is rather smaller than would have been expected if the plane broke apart at the claimed altitude.[9] The Czech Civil Aviation Authority nevertheless issued a statement denying the claim without addressing the evidence."
need we continue this debate?
Like I said, Urban Myth
Here you go.Ummm I think you're thinking of urban myth.
Im a former paratrooper. I don't recall anyone falling for nearly 6 miles and living.
This is disputed. There are claims it was a coverup and the plane was actually shot down (which is what was being covered up) from a much lower altitude.
Regardless, there are a number of other long fall survivors linked in the wiki entry. None as long, but all well over a mile.
In all those cases it states they had their fall broken by something else other than the hard ground, building or other object.
They are also older cases where the actual height of which they fell is rather dubiously undocumented.How many people survived jumping out of the burning Twin towers and falling onto the streets of new york?
Two dudes survived falling INSIDE the building (in the stair well to my knowledge.
But no unprotected bodies, falling any kind of distance and not having their fall broken by something have survived.
Because the fall can do less damage than a 5th level character can have. Duh.NO DUH, it doesn't. To fall far enough to actually REACH terminal velocity it would NOT do less damage than what a 5th level character can have,,, DUHHe said 'can', not 'would'.
Here you go.Ummm I think you're thinking of urban myth.
Im a former paratrooper. I don't recall anyone falling for nearly 6 miles and living.
Read the Article,
SHE didn't fall, she was in the plane that crashed from 33,000 feet.
Entirely different than a person falling OUT of plane and hitting the ground with her body alone.That's surviving a plane crash, not surviving a fall.
There are ALOT of people who have done that.No there aren't. Not the kind of plane crash that supposedly was. The kind where the pilots are kind of in control on the way down, sure. Not the kind where the plane blows up in mid air and you're in one of the sections in free fall for 33000'.
Edit: Yes, as I said above, it's disputed and most likely not true.
The same article links to several other cases of people falling a couple of miles and surviving, which makes essentially the same point, whatever that was.
I live in Alaska, People crash here yearly, the ratio of planes/pilots here per capita is way higher than anywhere else.
Lots of plane crashes, lots of survivors.Planes don't crash because the plane/pilot has any kind of control.
Not here…those are referred to has hard landings.
There are reasons why people don't bale out of aircraft that's going down. The plane fuselage is going to protect you… having nothing between you and the ground is NOT going to protect you.
So yea… there are LOTS of documented case of people surviving crashed planes.
Even ones that have been blown apart in combat.
I used to do some downed pilot recovery in the service, and even I have picked up a few blinking ones.
If nothing else Pendagast, your previous career and experiences have increased my respect for you tenfold. My hat goes off to anyone who deliberately goes into dangerous situations to,rescue/ recover other people.
wel it's not all that… movies make it seem much more glorious.
Yea, Ive seen people fall out of aircraft and survive… Im just saying they weren't traveling at terminal velocity and/or have had mitigating circumstances.
I don't fish the internet for random tidbits of dubious information, I go off things Ive seen and/or experienced, or in absence of that, multiple credible sources that have no reason to be parroting each other but happen to unilaterally agree "yes this happened".
There is too much crap in writing (on the internet or previously in print) that is just rumor, unwitnessed or theoretical.
All sorts of "fantastic" things came out of WW2 stories…but you have to think that people who were alive at that time also believe "war of the worlds" was a real truthful radio broadcast, and hiding under your desk at school would save you from nuclear bombs.
The ENTIRE "Red Scare" was a myth developed and spread by that generation, a myth that contributed to our foreign policy for 4 decades, and cost americans their edge in international economics.
So, pardon me If Im cynical as to unsubstantiated claims that I don't bee live simply because they are in writing, or someone said so, especially if they are in direct contradiction to things I have actually seen and witnessed.
It has long been my experience, that MOST people skim what they read, find what they have been looking for (already made up their mind on an article) and only glean from it that portion of which the want to believe.
It;s only gotten worse with the internet and the fact that anyone can author anything on it, and make it look "real", simply by the fact that nothing else "contrary" comes up on a search engine.
I'm not fond of those particular rules, but to the DMs that want to use them that is their choice and I wouldn't really fault them for it. They were released for use.
My newest group during the first session covered some encounters from their childhood. The DM's rule for running it was a custom one I hadn't seen before and worked pretty well for the story and gaming we did.
The basic gist is that you take -4 to all your stats but are still considered a first level character in your class and gain the relevant class features. You ended with a character not yet at their potential which makes sense but still playable with some luck and cleverness.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't bother to read through all the posts. The overwhelming attitude of "its the dms game" sickens me. Let him play by himself if its his game. The game is shared by all players and Dms alike. It is fair for a player to have a say in the rules. if anything it should be left up to the group to decide. if there is a reason the dm does not want a child involved i.e. sexual content or adult material that a player character under the age of 18 would just make him feel weird trying to roleplay with then I would restrict the play of children. if it is purely based on the "adults are this strong you must be weaker" then i will remind you this is a FANTASY game and each character in it is expected to be above average. Extraordinary people have exceptional stats even kids.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said, Urban...
Hey, we read it on the Internet, so it must be true. :-)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, when a player asks their gm if they can play a kid and the gm doesn't simply say 'no you can't' because that is what you would prefer, but instead says, 'you can but...' They are a douche or passive-aggressive?
Wth?
I'd say it depends on what follows the "but...".
I guess that when I ran a while back and a player wanted to be a divine caster and I said, 'you can but...' I was being a douche because I did not say 'no?'
Was your condition "But you can't have player classes/I will be taking away 75% of your class features and putting nothing in their place?", or perhaps "I will be giving you significant statistical penalties as severe as all the bad stuff of TWO age categories, but with way less stats getting bonuses than penalties?", or both?
What if I didn't want divine characters/kids but wanted to give the player the option to play one but with whatever conditions I set? Does my choice to compromise reflect negatively on me?
Only if the restriction your placing on the character mechanically cripples them, making them drag down the rest of the group, and drastically increase their odds of dying. Sort of like if you said "You CAN play a fighter who specializes in greatswords, but you're only going to have access to broken greatswords of a size category smaller than you for the entire campaign, and I won't let you have a strength score higher than 12."
There is no winning when you guys make these kind of statements. You don't know my motivations or the GM's so why are you making judgements with so little evidence?
I think they are inferring your motivations based on the assumption that you can see what the obvious outcome of such a ruling is, and then decided to do it anyways. The only alternative possibilities are that you are ignorant to the repercussions of such a ruling, or that you're unable/unwilling to change ANY RAW, even if the result of RAW is unreasonable/unfair/broken. If you're a slave to RAW, then the players should know that, and you they are going to expect you to be okay with the times RAW is broken in favor of the players, as well.
For this ruling specifically:
1. Giving stat penalties for children makes sense, there's a young template, and this is a system that has age category modifiers. These penalties are on the high end already though. -2 to three stats, +2 to one stat, and you're a size category smaller and therefore have smaller gear and whatnot. Most of this hurts. quite a bit already; but they might be able to stomach it.
2. Saying "You can't have real character levels unless the campaign timeline advances enough that you go up an age category" is the same as saying "I'll let you play a child, but you can't actually be a character, you'll be playing as an ineffective NPC" and telling a player "you can have part of your concept, but I'm going to make sure to punish you for it the whole campaign" comes across as highly passive aggressive, somewhat abusive, and definitely douchey; and I can't imagine any player feeling anything but hostile after hearing this.
"You can only try for that concept if you agree to be crippled beyond unplayability" is the same as telling me I can't play the concept, unless I as a player agree to be repeatedly slapped in the face every session. This is much more offensive than saying no, because obviously I am not going to consent to play it once you attach those conditions. I would much rather hear you say "I don't think I'm comfortable with that, build something else." or "I don't think that fits the tone I'm going for." - at least those don't result in "I will punish you for this concept".
Usually I am the GM. I would never put this on a player; it's not a condition on their concept, it's saying no to their concept while insulting them.
As a player, I would not play the concept, (and if the GM wasn't ignorant or a RAW slave - maybe because PFS, maybe not) I would feel highly insulted, the GM would come across as petty, passive aggressive, and juvenile, and it would obviously injure my relationship with said GM. At which point I would likely stop trying to come up with "what would be a fun concept to play", and start coming up with "what's a concept the GM isn't going to cripple", and it would factor into me considering if I would leave the gaming group entirely and/or stop playing any time that guy is GMing.
Needless to say, I feel for the OP; even if I wouldn't want to play a child (unless we were doing an "all children") game of some kind.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't bother to read through all the posts. The overwhelming attitude of "its the dms game" sickens me. Let him play by himself if its his game. The game is shared by all players and Dms alike. It is fair for a player to have a say in the rules. if anything it should be left up to the group to decide. if there is a reason the dm does not want a child involved i.e. sexual content or adult material that a player character under the age of 18 would just make him feel weird trying to roleplay with then I would restrict the play of children. if it is purely based on the "adults are this strong you must be weaker" then i will remind you this is a FANTASY game and each character in it is expected to be above average. Extraordinary people have exceptional stats even kids.
Oddly enough, the "It's a fantasy game therefore.." makes me fairly ill. It's a meaningless phrase meant to say that basically anything can happen because it's fantasy?
Even in most fantasy novels and material there are rules to the world at large -- how magic works, what magic can do and so on. Just because magic is involved doesn't mean that the floodgates are open and anything goes.
As for it being the GM or Players game -- we've beaten this particular dead horse into dust over the last few years. Everyone should communicate, no one is better than anyone else, etc etc. Vehemently saying that the GM should run a game for himself if he doesn't let the player have their way doesn't fly for me. We can talk about it, sure, but if I get ultimatums I am more than happy to do just that -- play by myself.
My players have, for the most part, been eager and willing to discuss things and work out compromises and/or trust that when I put down rules they are for their benefit and not just for my own personal jollies. Hopefully others have the same luck with their GMs, and they have players at their table that are willing to discuss things rationally.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't bother to read through all the posts. The overwhelming attitude of "its the dms game" sickens me. Let him play by himself if its his game. The game is shared by all players and Dms alike. It is fair for a player to have a say in the rules. if anything it should be left up to the group to decide. if there is a reason the dm does not want a child involved i.e. sexual content or adult material that a player character under the age of 18 would just make him feel weird trying to roleplay with then I would restrict the play of children. if it is purely based on the "adults are this strong you must be weaker" then i will remind you this is a FANTASY game and each character in it is expected to be above average. Extraordinary people have exceptional stats even kids.
If the GM is using official rules put in place by the company that makes the game as professional game designers, then I don't think its a situation of "the DM s way or no way"
I understand your point, to an extent.
However, I do find that when I DM I spend far more time and energy in preparing for the game and even at the game table. As such, I make sure I don't bring extra stuff that's going to make headaches for me to run. I'll use official rules every time if they're available. If not, chances are it's not gonna fly, because the long term consequences are harder to predict the people give it credit for. In this case, what was the players intentions when their young character aged in game? Where they going to angle for more stat benefits? Were they going to use it as a benefit in roleplay situations? How often am I going to have to make special decisions regarding this character because of their age? (The same can be said for certain races too I guess). How often will I need to work starting attitudes for NPCs because of the age? What about combat ethics for groups who won't attack children?
All of those are things the DM must make decisions on every session that something outside the standard rule sets provide. For me as DM, that makes certain choices a no go. For others, the go meh and run with it.
It is the GMs choice. If players get pushy, the GM just says bye bye, and now no one gets a game. In our neck of the woods, GMs are much rarer than players. You might be in a different situation though.
|
so...
Player: I want to roleplay a child wizard
DM: Ok, but you can only take npc classes oh and also have a penalty to 3 scores, on the other hand you have +2 to dex, those are the rules
Player: Thank you dm! I think this rules are completely fair and very fun to play!.
Now just let me check the adept´s handbook...
So is the argument that the DM is wrong because the official rules are too weak? Would a DM be wrong to let a character play a rogue/monk multiclass? Should he just say no? Change the rules to make the combo more powerful?
|
|
So is the argument that the DM is wrong because the official rules are too weak? Would a DM be wrong to let a character play a rogue/monk multiclass? Should he just say no? Change the rules to make the combo more powerful?
A dm cant be wrong.
A dm can be good, bad, passive agressive, fair, be a douce or just be annoying, but no, a dm cant be wrong. Its one of the fundamentals of the system.
The question is, is playing an adept fun? The op has stated that he doesnt find it fun. Personally i wouldnt play with a dm who forces me to play the "samurai" class because my pcs background says he is a samurai.
So is the argument that the DM is wrong because the official rules are too weak? Would a DM be wrong to let a character play a rogue/monk multiclass? Should he just say no? Change the rules to make the combo more powerful?A dm cant be wrong.
A dm can be good, bad, passive agressive, fair, be a douce or just be annoying, but no, a dm cant be wrong. Its one of the fundamentals of the system.
The question is, is playing an adept fun? The op has stated that he doesnt find it fun. Personally i wouldnt play with a dm who forces me to play the "samurai" class because my pcs background says he is a samurai.
The DM isn't forcing anyone to do anything that I could tell. The OP wanted to play as a child, the DM said, "ok, here are the rules for kids," and now because the OP doesn't like the official rules, the DM is a "passive aggressive douche." My question is, What other weak rules is the DM obligated to change for a player in order to not be those things?
Compare to...
Player: I want to roleplay a child wizard
DM: Sorry no, no childs in my campaign, it would spoil the adventure's feeling
Player: oh dang it, ok i guess ill have to play something else
And then how many posters would be attacking the DM for not allowing the player' character concept?
|
|
So is the argument that the DM is wrong because the official rules are too weak? Would a DM be wrong to let a character play a rogue/monk multiclass? Should he just say no? Change the rules to make the combo more powerful?
The argument is that the (optional) game mechanics the GM is using make the character sufficiently terrible, that I would legitimately view it as an insult to have that be presented to me as though the GM thought it was actually reasonable, and I would expect the player to be very upset with me if I presented that to them as though it were reasonable in a game I was running. (again, unless everyone is playing as children with the same rules).
For the Rogue/Monk multiclass?
Honestly, I would warn the character that there is a high chance their character would be mechanically terrible if they did that; and if they weren't confident that they could optimize such a character well enough to keep up, I would try to work with them to help them cover the concept, possibly using other class options (the right combination of ranger/monk, ranger/fighter, bard/monk, bard/fighter, or something with magus might cover what they were trying for) - Failing that, I would look at available 3pp that might cover it - and failing THAT, I might make them a custom archetype/ranger fighting style (assuming they brought it to me a few weeks before the game and I had time to help them out). If they were unwilling to consider other builds for their concept, and the character they came up with was too terrible to meaningfully contribute, I would advise against it, but tell them they can play it if BOTH they and they other players are okay with its (in)ability to meaningfully contribute.
And then how many posters would be attacking the DM for not allowing the player' character concept?Compare to...
Player: I want to roleplay a child wizard
DM: Sorry no, no childs in my campaign, it would spoil the adventure's feeling
Player: oh dang it, ok i guess ill have to play something else
How many of those poster's opinions matter when it's the DM's game and therefore the DM's call and all of the players know that beforehand?
It works both ways, a DM enforcing the RAW is no more a power trippy DM than a character driven player who disregards RAW in favor of flavor is a whiny entitled brat.
Just because you want your character to be a child doesn't mean you should behave like one, respect each other's wishes and the game will go a hundred times smoother.
So is the argument that the DM is wrong because the official rules are too weak? Would a DM be wrong to let a character play a rogue/monk multiclass? Should he just say no? Change the rules to make the combo more powerful?The argument is that the (optional) game mechanics the GM is using make the character sufficiently terrible, that I would legitimately view it as an insult to have that be presented to me as though the GM thought it was actually reasonable. (again, unless everyone is playing as children with the same rules).
So it's the GM's fault the official rules are considered terrible? Should the GM rewrite the kids rules before or after he scours all 3pp material for the rogue/monk player?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue monk concept can very likely be built using existing archetypes; it's also a more difficult fix than the child character (optional rule) which the GM could just not use (being that the rule for how to handle it is optional).
If he said "you'll be taking the stat penalties but you can still have actual character classes" it would still be crappy, but less of a slap in the face.
Were it me (and I were willing to allow a child character), I would see it and say: "Clearly we can't use the optional rule in Ultimate Campaign, they're broken, terrible, and retarded. The stat bonuses are crippling, and stopping you from having actual character classes is in no way reasonable. How about I just give you stat modifiers, and (like all of the other age categories) make the positives and negatives cancel out. I'll give you +2 dex, and -2 to one of str, con, or wis - which we can do at random (but before you assign your stats), and of course, you're a size category smaller".
If I were inclined to give mostly stat penalties, none of those penalties would be beyond a -1.
It's a 30-second fix, and I would walk away with something that reasonably approximates a child, and a happy player, then I can go deal with Mr. Class-Choices-That-WIll-Drag-Down-The-Other-Players' problem.
|
|
And no, it's not the GM's fault that some of the official rules are terrible. It IS his fault when RAW applies when it punishes the player but not when it applies in his favor. As I mentioned, if I am going to be a slave to RAW, I should tell the players that I'll be running the game RAW, and I should take the powerful with the weak; and when a player comes across a broken RAW combo thats in his favor, I shouldn't nerf it. That's fair (albeit somewhat silly).
But if I am going to shut down/fix the broken powerful options that work under RAW, I am being an A****** if I don't also shut down/fix the broken pathetic options that exist under RAW.
I didn't bother to read through all the posts. The overwhelming attitude of "its the dms game" sickens me. Let him play by himself if its his game. The game is shared by all players and Dms alike. It is fair for a player to have a say in the rules. if anything it should be left up to the group to decide. if there is a reason the dm does not want a child involved i.e. sexual content or adult material that a player character under the age of 18 would just make him feel weird trying to roleplay with then I would restrict the play of children. if it is purely based on the "adults are this strong you must be weaker" then i will remind you this is a FANTASY game and each character in it is expected to be above average. Extraordinary people have exceptional stats even kids.
because when the players are doing something the GM doesn't want to deal with, the GM leaves and then no one plays.
if a GM spends time making a character and the characters irrationally kill him for no reason, the GM has a right to be as upset as a GM killing a PC arbitrarily.
likewise if a GM wants to play by listed rules and pressure child characters until level 3, because he doesn't want to deal with RPing with an inexperienced child, he has all the right to do it. (i would actually just let the character be any age within role play reason, currently have a 13 year old hunter in my players)
i'm sorry if i feel a bit confrontational, but i have to deal with players who think the GM isn't another player just in a different seat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is wrong because the official rules are someone at Paizo engaging in unacceptable passive aggressive behavior.
Any GM who is not a passive aggressive douche will ignore these rules just like they do not act on the rules legal possibility that a cleric's god may just up and die for reasons unknown in the middle of the campaign or decide that today all they get is (heightened) stabilize in all of their slots.
You've made a very valid and reasoned argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.