If the player is planning on taking advantage of being underestimated for being a child, it's reasonable that they should be significantly weaker. The NPC class only rules are one way to do that and responding that "Here are the published rules" isn't unreasonable.
Do they go too far to make the child weak? Maybe. But just like how I wouldn't allow a blind swordsman to just have blindsight because he got used to it, I'd probably make the kid give something up. Maybe no traits since there isn't as much time for backstory. Maybe different racial traits. Maybe no weapon proficiencies since the kid got out even less than normal wizards. I'm not sure, but child who's as good at the job as people as exceptional as adventurers is significantly more unlikely.
So I agree with the GM as a starting point but, as always, communication is important.
I don't particularly think the official rules are terrible. I think they'd probably work fine for an all child game or for someone actually interested in playing a sidekick Shortround style character (though I can't really imagine why anyone would want to.)
Why would anyone want to play a Dwarf? A wizard? A Halfling that specializes in grappling?
Because they want to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So just to get things straight, the consensus of the thread is "the rules are bad, DMs should let players be young characters at no penalty because FUn>yoUroPinIOn?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that isn't what it is, but I fear it might be.
So just to get things straight, the consensus of the thread is "the rules are bad, DMs should let players be young characters at no penalty because FUn>yoUroPinIOn?"
Nah, I'm all for a point-buy or stats penalty. The class restriction thing makes little sense.
A child adventurer is clearly extraordinary, there is not reason for them to be Warriors, Adepts, and Experts who then retrain to real classes. It just doesn't make sense to me.
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.
a child PC without any real penalty compared to an adult is perfectly fine in a setting where superhuman feats are performed on a regular basis, does it matter whether the guy who suplexes the balor and wins is an adult male in his early thirties or a twelve year old gothloli?
few campaigns have sufficiently long time skips for a child to really grow up, meaning the penalties could last the entire campaign, so it is better to not inflict them, PCs are outliers and all that inflicting arbritrary penalties on a child PC does is kill a variety of concepts you should have just rejected instead of penalizing, whether class restriction or point buy penalty, a dick move is a dick move. better to disallow something than to penalize it. maybe enforce a minimum age equivalent such as 10 or 12, or justify the adult stats as a miracle, blessing or the result of magic or whatever
in a place where an old man in a dress can chant mathematical equations and rub together a handful of sulfur and bat dung to create a 45 foot diamter cube of fire that is more effective and more precise than modern demolitions charges from 600 feet away and get exactly the targets they desire, a child warrior who can keep up with her adult counterparts is no wierder. i really don't like age based modifiers in a fantasy or science fiction RPG where characters could do superhuman and even blatantly physics defying feats on a regular basis without much effort.
On the other hand, a lot of planes got blown up...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.
Sure a PF character COULD survive a fall from 30k feet according to the rules that limit that damage to 20D6 (although I doubt that fall is a 'cake walk' for a 5th level character)
But if you want to bust the wall on character age, why should expect to be "protected" by the wall that limits falling damage?
180d6 here we come!
|
I feel like whoever this dm is, they're getting a lot of unfair judgement. They aren't arbitrary trying to punish a player from the sounds of it, but apply a very reasonable rule set the game has. I took the child character section of the Ultimate Campaign books as a means to play a low level adventure where your characters are children who are just beginning to learn whatever in their field. They were shooting for Arya Stark rather than Gara the sand ninja.
If you want to play a child prodigy who is a person of mass destruction and that's what your dm wants to do, which will probably be shot down by a LOT of dms, then fine. But to expect people to just be open minded to your character concept which isn't consistent with the rules or even the setting (Pathfinder is a fantasy game, not a super hero game despite the magic) is a bit absurd. If there are any children of immense power in Pathfinder, which I wouldn't doubt, they are a rare exception. It's like asking to play as the child of "insert god here" but just aesthetically.
see I think a major issue with NPC classes is that too many module writers made the bad guys PC classes.
This SHOULD have been EXTREMELY Rare.
ESPECIALLY at lower levels… BUT one of the funnest things about the game is character building, an game designers want to have fun too.
There should be ALOT more bad guys that are adepts, experts, warriors, and even commoners.
A group of 4 PCs could have hard time with the gang of 3rd-7th level commoners, or the Evil 6th level aristocrat who's simultaneously taxing his town to their last dime while blaming his need to do so on needing to maintain his small personal army of 1st level warriors because of the marauding bad of goblins whom, he's actually paying with part of the taxes to maraud.
this just doesn't get done enough.
even when you see NPC classes for NPCs they are multi classed with PC classes…
the problem with all this is it has ruined the feel that 1st level PC classes are in anyway special.
so they feel mundane as a result, giving players the feeling "my character was born a 1st level fighter"
when it's simply not the case.
Why does bob grow up to be a warrior while his brother tom is a fighter?
There is nothing rules wise preventing bob from being a fighter instead of a warrior.
No stat prereq's, not alignment entry etc.
Just "I chose to be substandard."
Ive always liked earlier rules sets of 0-level commoners.
The idea that all PC races start out with d6 his, and a plethora of everyman skills (like Profession)
So when a character becomes a 1st level character, he has the "common d6 hp" PLUS his 1st level-ness and a bunch of other skills that he might have had growing up as a a farmer, or a jail guard or whatever.
giving the characters more base and function as people, and allowing a starting point FOR a child character who has not yet developed.
So instead of wasting X levels of character development on NPC classes, he can simply start at 0-level as opposed to first level.
for this reason, I prefer the style of early rules sets to cover this better.
A campaign is a matter of deciding what breaks from reality you find acceptable.Why exactly what I find acceptable "isn't relevant"? Just because YOU don't find child adventurers or whatever else acceptable doesn't make it unreasonable. Fantasy is not Reality and I'm going to make as many breaks from it as I please, that's the whole point of it. There's no limit, other than the one you set yourself.
And the answer to your reply is: "Because I want them to."
And unlike real life, that's all I really need.
Also, I present to you Jaela Daran, an eleven year old Cleric of Silver Flame from the Eberron setting. She's normally 3rd level, but is also the most powerful Cleric in Eberron (18th level) when she's near her keep.
3rd level just so happens to be the level when the rules say you can give them access to PC classes.
also because, the GM needs to find his own world more acceptable than the players do if he's going to make/illustrate content for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A campaign is a matter of deciding what breaks from reality you find acceptable.Why exactly what I find acceptable "isn't relevant"?
Casters exist, therefore casters exist. Dragons exist, therefore dragons exist. Those two statements are fine. Casters exist, therefore dragons exist isn't necessarily true. Casters and dragons existing is irrelevant to children being adventurers.
Just because YOU don't find child adventurers or whatever else acceptable doesn't make it unreasonable.
Just because YOU don't find it unreasonable doesn't mean everyone must accept it.
Fantasy is not Reality and I'm going to make as many breaks from it as I please, that's the whole point of it. There's no limit, other than the one you set yourself.
And the answer to your reply is: "Because I want them to."
and unlike real life, that's all I really need.
You realize that you're actually agreeing with the portion you quoted, right?
Also, I present to you Jaela Daran, an eleven year old Cleric of Silver Flame from the Eberron setting. She's normally 3rd level, but is also the most powerful Cleric in Eberron (18th level) when she's near her keep.
Somebody did, therefore everyone has to isn't necessarily true.
To answer the OP's question - Should GMs enforce the Young Characters Campaign System from Ultimate Campaign? for clarification,
If it fits their game, yes. If it doesn't fit their game, another solution should be found. The adventure's theme should be taken into account (much of which the player may not be completely aware of), as well as the sensibilities of the GM and the other players. It may seem like a simple decision, but with many groups it absolutely cannot be taken in the same sense as, say, choosing to play a dwarf or a half-orc. Playing as child can evoke child in danger themes that some are not comfortable with.
If it were my game? I would simply not allow a child character, nor would I play in a party with one (I wouldn't make any demands of a GM who would allow such a concept, I would just leave that group). I don't feel I would have to explain my choice, either.
I think what I have learned from this thread is that there needs to be more NPC classes that are generally weaker than the PC versions of their own classes, and said classes should be available to child characters.
I think what I have learned from this thread is that there needs to be more NPC classes that are generally weaker than the PC versions of their own classes, and said classes should be available to child characters.
while that's pretty much what i said above, I also feel it's just too late in the rules/game development to make that the status quo.
but I wouldn't be adverse to the BBEG being a 72 year old 16th level commoner, either.
edit: i also think NPC classes should level faster/easier than PC classes.
I mean who would spend the time to become a 16th level commoner when you could attain 16 levels of we'll gee ANYTHING else?
It's like if PO actually HAD the noodle dream… dragon warrior? F that, slurp on my secret ingredient evil doers!
I think what I have learned from this thread is that there needs to be more NPC classes that are generally weaker than the PC versions of their own classes, and said classes should be available to child characters.
I do agree that there should be an arcane NPC class (and not just, "Okay, this adept casts as an arcane spellcaster now"). Eberron had magewrights, but I never really liked the feel of them unfortunately. I also believe NPC classes should cap at 10.
I think what I have learned from this thread is that there needs to be more NPC classes that are generally weaker than the PC versions of their own classes, and said classes should be available to child characters.I do agree that there should be an arcane NPC class (and not just, "Okay, this adept casts as an arcane spellcaster now"). Eberron had magewrights, but I never really liked the feel of them unfortunately. I also believe NPC classes should cap at 10.
true.
NPCs should also get traits rather than feats.
Should be a character creation mechanic where you go through your 'childhood' as a nth level NPC, where you pick up your traits, base HP and skills, THEN add your level 1 to that.
Could have been a wizards apprentice for example, which is where you got your original cantrips from, or you could have been a stage magician, who discovered a spell book and became a real mage…
MOST, normal people who thus be NPC classes who languish in mediocrity.
however a 72 year old level 10 aristocrat (Robert the BRuce's father in Braveheart comes to mind) would still make a pretty formidable BBEG.
10 levels of D6, even with the really low con from being old as dirt he could have 35-40 hit points and maybe a +6 to hit with his wither old hand on his longsword.
would be a mean man to face at the end of a level 1-4 adventure.
|
see I think a major issue with NPC classes is that too many module writers made the bad guys PC classes.
This SHOULD have been EXTREMELY Rare.
ESPECIALLY at lower levels… BUT one of the funnest things about the game is character building, an game designers want to have fun too.
There should be ALOT more bad guys that are adepts, experts, warriors, and even commoners.
A group of 4 PCs could have hard time with the gang of 3rd-7th level commoners, or the Evil 6th level aristocrat who's simultaneously taxing his town to their last dime while blaming his need to do so on needing to maintain his small personal army of 1st level warriors because of the marauding bad of goblins whom, he's actually paying with part of the taxes to maraud.
this just doesn't get done enough.
even when you see NPC classes for NPCs they are multi classed with PC classes…
Wow. I heavily disagree with all of that. That sounds terribly dull.
the problem with all this is it has ruined the feel that 1st level PC classes are in anyway special.
so they feel mundane as a result, giving players the feeling "my character was born a 1st level fighter"
when it's simply not the case.
1st level PCs are not and should not be special. The player characters don't have some sort of mystical spark of heroism that makes them better than anyone else (unless you're using mythic rules), they're just competent, and at level 1, they aren't even skilled. If the characters (1st level) run into some soldiers from the kings army, not a single one will be less than a 4th level character with at least half of those in a PC Class, unless it's the guy they're giving a hard time, who is carrying their food. At level 1, the PCs are about equivalent in the world to four 17 year olds just finishing high school, who got good decent grades and will be starting college in the fall. This isn't exalted, where the PCs are demigods of some kind. They're regular people who are just getting into a dangerous line of work, but don't have any skills yet. Again, unless your players are starting with a Mythic Rank. Then they're special. They're not even all that special at level 10; otherwise it wouldn't be so easy to find higher level craftsmen to make things or cast spells for you.
By 20, you're special - olympic athlete, spetsnaz special. You're as good as you can get without mythic ranks.
Why does bob grow up to be a warrior while his brother tom is a fighter?
There is nothing rules wise preventing bob from being a fighter instead of a warrior.
No stat prereq's, not alignment entry etc.Just "I chose to be substandard."
Bob was lazy, and couldn't be bothered to learn anything useful. He was too busy getting drunk/high and failing at hitting on the ladies to actually learn anything useful in in the last 17 years. Therefore he has levels in warrior.
Seriously though, If I'm GMing, I basically just dispense with the NPC classes altogether (occasionally an NPC may have a couple of levels of expert, and I may use levels of commoner to stat up someone who has had an easy life, learning nothing useful, and having no life experience). The NPCs have worse stats, lower wealth, and are less optimized. Thats makes them worse than PCs already. NPC Classes aren't good for anything, except to make an NPC even easier to defeat.
Ive always liked earlier rules sets of 0-level commoners.
The idea that all PC races start out with d6 his, and a plethora of everyman skills (like Profession)
So when a character becomes a 1st level character, he has the "common d6 hp" PLUS his 1st level-ness and a bunch of other skills that he might have had growing up as a a farmer, or a jail guard or whatever.
giving the characters more base and function as people, and allowing a starting point FOR a child character who has not yet developed.
So instead of wasting X levels of character development on NPC classes, he can simply start at 0-level as opposed to first level.
That would be a better way to handle it, I agree. Having 0 level characters cover building your typical person under the age of 16 isn't a bad idea.
I think what I have learned from this thread is that there needs to be more NPC classes that are generally weaker than the PC versions of their own classes, and said classes should be available to child characters.
I think most of the people in this thread would disagree with that, and would go the other way. NPC Classes were a bad idea from the start, with the possible exception of Expert. Hunter NPC? Trapper Ranger. Farmer? Expert. Barkeep? Some combination of Rogue, Expert, Bard, or Fighter.
I don't even use "NPC Classes" for my NPCs. No way am I going to try to force them on a player at my table.
As for Child characters, allow them or disallow them based on your personal tastes, but presenting the optional rule to your players and pretending it's not passive-aggressive or insulting and expecting them not to be annoyed with you is neither reasonable nor realistic. Just saying no would be better.
If you're running a "RAW" game (the only situation where making or using a ruling similar to this is not passive-aggressive player abuse - only way barring "I'm a new GM, I'm ignorant to how this game works, and I can't immediately see how unreasonable this is at a glance"), of course, the players should be informed of that you'e running everything RAW, so that they can max out leadership, and take advantage of the grapple rules to get from town to town at 200 MPH; or do whatever the pathfinder equivalent of building PunPun is. If you're only willing to use houserules to fix broken parts of the game when they are broken in favor of the players, now we're back to the passive-aggressive behaviour mentioned earlier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Four general comments:
Last time I checked, cubes don't have diameters. You could inscribe a sphere in or around the cube, and *that* would have a diameter.
According to my father, his family all sat around the radio listening to the "War of the Worlds" broadcast, and in order to find out the truth of it, my grandfather called Effie, the local telephone operator, because she of course knew *everything* that was going on.
The general idea is to tell a story. The GM draws the general outline, and then the players act out their parts. Both players and GMs will get surprises in this endeavor. This is a *good* thing. The only good reason, imo, for changing the rules is to keep them from interfering with the story. Remember though, that the story is a cooperative effort, not a contentious or confrontational one.
Calling something "passive-aggressive abuse" does not make it so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The young characters ruleset is mainly for those who don't mind a somewhat anime flavor to their games.
While I personally don't like children in a group barring some really odd corner cases, I'm really curious as to what episode of Sailor Moon had this kid in it? Wait, no, I bet he was from Trigun, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or mayhaps a party of evil n'er do-wells might have talked you into something unsavory.
It's amazing what some kids will do for pokemon cards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A campaign is a matter of deciding what breaks from reality you find acceptable.Why exactly what I find acceptable "isn't relevant"? Just because YOU don't find child adventurers or whatever else acceptable doesn't make it unreasonable. Fantasy is not Reality and I'm going to make as many breaks from it as I please, that's the whole point of it. There's no limit, other than the one you set yourself.
And the answer to your reply is: "Because I want them to."
And unlike real life, that's all I really need.
Also, I present to you Jaela Daran, an eleven year old Cleric of Silver Flame from the Eberron setting. She's normally 3rd level, but is also the most powerful Cleric in Eberron (18th level) when she's near her keep.3rd level just so happens to be the level when the rules say you can give them access to PC classes.
also because, the GM needs to find his own world more acceptable than the players do if he's going to make/illustrate content for it.
+1 regarding the GM needing to find their own world acceptable.
@Anarchy_Kanya: There are limits, actually: those the GM and/or table has set up. You can like and want to play an 8 year old barbarian or 6 year old magician or 18 month old cavalier who rides on a stuffed toy sheep, but that doesn't always mean you can in every campaign. Breaks from reality are fine; not every table is set to the same level of break, however.
Also, what is the link to that character supposed to illustrate? To me, it says "plot device" followed by "that sure is a lot of +6 gear for a 3rd level PC." I'm not sure that it helps to prove that 11 year old characters are viable.
Four general comments:
Last time I checked, cubes don't have diameters. You could inscribe a sphere in or around the cube, and *that* would have a diameter.
Slight mathematical derail:
Casters exist, therefore casters exist. Dragons exist, therefore dragons exist. Those two statements are fine. Casters exist, therefore dragons exist isn't necessarily true. Casters and dragons existing is irrelevant to children being adventurers.A campaign is a matter of deciding what breaks from reality you find acceptable.Why exactly what I find acceptable "isn't relevant"?This isn't that argument though.
The game rules do not work properly if all the party members are not very close to the same power level therefore if child adventurers exist they must use the same classes as adults or a subset thereof, not a different set of strictly inferior classes.
Oracles, Witches, and Summoners exist and receive their power completely without training or even volition therefore being a child is not a barrier to having PC classes.
If you don't want child PCs that's fine and dandy. Ban them. When your son asks for bread you don't give him a serpent. If you're not going to give him bread just tell him he can't have bread. Don't give him poison and tell him it's bread. When you players ask to play child adventurers tell them yes or no. Do not passive aggressively shove punitive rules down their throats.
once again, by third level, this isn't a problem. Actually read the whole of the rules, as it states they gain PC classes when ever the GM thinks they have gains enough experience (and suggests 3rd~5th level)
once again, by third level, this isn't a problem. Actually read the whole of the rules, as it states they gain PC classes when ever the GM thinks they have gains enough experience (and suggests 3rd~5th level)Casters exist, therefore casters exist. Dragons exist, therefore dragons exist. Those two statements are fine. Casters exist, therefore dragons exist isn't necessarily true. Casters and dragons existing is irrelevant to children being adventurers.A campaign is a matter of deciding what breaks from reality you find acceptable.Why exactly what I find acceptable "isn't relevant"?This isn't that argument though.
The game rules do not work properly if all the party members are not very close to the same power level therefore if child adventurers exist they must use the same classes as adults or a subset thereof, not a different set of strictly inferior classes.
Oracles, Witches, and Summoners exist and receive their power completely without training or even volition therefore being a child is not a barrier to having PC classes.
If you don't want child PCs that's fine and dandy. Ban them. When your son asks for bread you don't give him a serpent. If you're not going to give him bread just tell him he can't have bread. Don't give him poison and tell him it's bread. When you players ask to play child adventurers tell them yes or no. Do not passive aggressively shove punitive rules down their throats.
so umm what do they do with the first few levels?
Are they forever a level 2 adept/level X wizard?I haven't read the rules, as I probably wouldn't use them.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't get this "it's passive aggressive" and "bad DMing."
First, we din't know exactly how things went down. The OP didn't say how the conversation went, just that the child rules were invoked. That's not passive aggressive. That's certainly not giving a child poison and telling them it's water. That's "this is what the rule will be if you do this." The DM could very well have said "No, I don't want this in my campaign. I don't want child soldiers in my game-world. But if you insist on doing it, these are the rules you must use."
It would be passive aggressive if the DM said "sure you can play a child" and left it at that, and then, once play was going, sprung the NPC class switch on the player. If you describe what the rules would be if the player makes the choice they have suggested, it's not pettiness - failure to explain the consequences is pettiness. "If you X then Y, are you sure you want to X?" should not be denigrated. "If you X then Y, and though you didn't know about Y you mentioned X therefore you are stuck with it hahaha!" should be. And clearly, this wasn't a case of the DM preying on a person with poor system mastery to ruin their character concept, which I agree would be bad form.
As for the idea that no character concept/roleplaying choices should have in-game effects, that is, IMHO, patently absurd. If a player who chose to describe their character as so hideous in appearance that adults gasped and children screamed, would they be justified in their irritation when the DM had people react poorly to his character?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't that argument though.
When someone says "fantasy, therefore anything goes" then someone responds "playing fantasy doesn't necessarily have to mean anything goes" then yes, it is the argument. Only in that case, but it is exactly the argument I was following.
The game rules do not work properly if all the party members are not very close to the same power level therefore if child adventurers exist they must use the same classes as adults or a subset thereof, not a different set of strictly inferior classes.
OR, you could accept that wanting to play something outside the normal for this adventure means you're not going to be able to use the normal rules. You could also decide that you're not willing to take the penalty and play something else.
Oracles, Witches, and Summoners exist and receive their power completely without training or even volition therefore being a child is not a barrier to having PC classes.
How exciting.
If you don't want child PCs that's fine and dandy. Ban them. When your son asks for bread you don't give him a serpent. If you're not going to give him bread just tell him he can't have bread. Don't give him poison and tell him it's bread.
That doesn't even make sense. That isn't remotely close to the same thing. If my son asked for bread and I gave him wheat bread even though he wanted white, that's a closer analogy. The GM didn't say "you can't play a child, for even wanting to you have to play a pixie."
When you players ask to play child adventurers tell them yes or no. Do not passive aggressively shove punitive rules down their throats.
As has been pointed out several times now, there is absolutely, positively nothing passive aggressive about saying "sure you can play a child but you're going to have to follow these rules." Repeatedly claiming it doesn't make it so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
Except in 90 percent of genre fiction with a child protagonist, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still haven't seen why class restrictions should be enforced. Or how they make any sort of sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except in 90% of genre fiction with a child protagonist, they're not adventuring with other adult protagonists.Except in 90 percent of genre fiction with a child protagonist, of course.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.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.
They are, however, capable of taking on adult antagonists, which is the part that really matters.
They are, however, capable of taking on adult antagonists, which is the part that really matters.
Typically not at the beginning of the story. If you look at early conflicts, often even at the end of the first book, they tend to be with other children, personal demons, or involve a massive amount of luck/deus ex machina. Later in the series they'll have greater skills and proper agency, but that's actually modeled fairly well by the swapping out of the early NPC levels.
Even the examples where the young heroes triumph by virtue of their own skill, it's usually because of their childlike differences, not because they're as good at the adults' game.
Edit: I decided I should make it explicit - books where the kids are as smart/strong/skilled as the adults exist, too. Ender's Game is a good example where the kids are as good in their relevant field while their innocence is still important.
so umm what do they do with the first few levels?
Are they forever a level 2 adept/level X wizard?
I haven't read the rules, as I probably wouldn't use them.
It seems strange to me that you would want to participate in this discussion and ask questions about it, and then point out how you haven't bothered to read the rules because you wouldn't use them. This is especially strange to me due to the Young Characters page being easily accessible with the "Rules Archive (PRD)" button on the left-hand side of this page.
The most important part of the "Young Characters" rules seems to be the part at the end, which advises consideration and discussion with your fellow players beforehand to make sure everyone's okay with it. You (the OP) need to have that conversation if you haven't already. The second part that jumps out at me is the part about "Leaving Youth Behind", wherein there are multiple options listed for how to develop your character. If your GM wants to go easy on you, sure, they could just let you have all the powers and abilities up-front, but you and your party might actually end up having more fun if your character's journey and growth are played out for all to see.
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?Because, as everyone not an inveterate fanboi has been saying all thread, the Paizo rules people were having an unwarranted bout of passive aggressive dickery aimed mostly at one person who liked to post table stories about his or her creepy child characters.
....eh?