Whether or not the child is allowed, should a child (8 years old as I recall) have some sort of mechanical penalty for their age. I think this ended up being the concern of the OPSo far I have only seen good reasons for stat penalties. The class restrictions make little sense.
Stat penalties and size changes capture the biological differences pretty well. But how should you reflect the fact that kids haven't had as much time to train or even just experience the world? I think often they're "student adventurers" in the fiction examples.
Ideally this would mean some toned down version of the class where you get the spirit but not the full package. I think warrior does that for fighter pretty well, by the way. Depending what you think is the defining feature of a rogue, expert could be, too. The rest of it is an attempt to prevent this corner of the system from dominating the attention in Ultimate Campaign. They wanted to give some completeish guidance without taking several chapters to hash it out.
I know there's a 3PP apprentice classes product out there. The class restrictions are an abridged version of that. Is it perfect? No. But I think a smaller skill set is a more important feature of child characters than diminished ability scores. At least for my gut feel of the difference between kids and adults. You could also have the same breadth but less depth, but that's not how I see a prodigy going.
For experiences, I would reflect that with mental stat penalties.
I also don't feel that most realistic people ever progress passed level one. So the idea of a level 2 child class character makes no sense to me.
I could see starting a child off as a level 1 NPC class, then when they level up, making them a lvl 1 real class. For most parties though, that leveling should be done off-screen before the game starts.
If I was running a child PC as a GM, I would start them off at a lower point buy and then give them more points as they gain years, and of-course the size penalty for as long as that remained relevant.
I don't think it's a matter of age always equates better, but I do think adult equals better than kid in the instance of the same person.
Hear me out.
For any instance of comparison between two things to be valid from a scientific standpoint, you need to eliminate all extraneous variables to the degree in which it is possible. Where you cannot eliminate variables, you introduce random sampling to average things out. It's all statistics and science. This is why when they test new drugs they get as large of a random sample as possible, eliminate outliers, etc. They want to make sure it is the one changed factor, the drug or the placebo, that causes any discovered changes, not random chance or circumstance or the like.
Because of this kind of thing you can't compare one kid to another adult. That changes too many variables. You have to compare one kid to himself or herself as an adult. In those instances, I can't see the kid being better... the adult has all the knowledge the kid had, much more experience, and a physically superior body.
Those 8 year old black belts are, by and large if they continue the exact same regimen of training, much more advanced in their capabilities as adults. If they don't continue that same training then you've thrown a monkey wrench in the gears; the variable of training. You can't say for sure whether it is age or lack of training which affects competence.
The other option is to compare a completely random (not hand-picked from certain examples) group of kids to an equally random group of adults. Again, the situation in this instance will remain the same. The adults will trump the kids, mentally and physically, hands down.
Ender's game was thrown out as an example of kids who are superior to the adults around them. But if you continue the series, those same kids, as teenagers and later adults, still have their tactical brilliance, etc., but have grown new skill sets and refined their existing skills. Bean constantly outsmarts his kids in one of...
I do believe I said that 6 pages ago.
the character creation rules we have on hand, are to create ADULT characters.
you cannot create a yet to be fully developed child character with this rule set, without gimping it, and waiting to come of age.
Like I spelled out previously, if adult characters got 20 character points, it's Ok to reason the child gets 10.
This creates a child character who is every bit the equal of the "common adult" but, not the equal of his adult self, are the equal of the heroic adults he accompanies.
And interesting plot twist is, that at 4th and 8th level, this character would get +1 stats (so still a "child" could have a 22 int)
sometime after 8th level the character encounters a ghost, and AGES into an adult… gaining access to his missing 10 character points… and could develop on the spot into a FREAK of a character! muahaha!
a child may have had less time to train than an adult when you measure lifespans, but a child who starts younger or takes their education more seriously is going to be more powerful than an adult who never took their education seriously. and even then, only the more recent years of experience in ones life matter, because as new skills are learned, old ones are tossed aside and forgotten, and as ones lifestyle changes, so does their body. when my boyfriend was in the third grade, he was pretty small, the size of a first grader, completely untrained at the time, and he beat the snot out of big beefy highly trained school security guards in unarmed combat, i'm talking 6'7" 350 lbs school bouncers were beaten by a boy who wasn't even 60 lbs or wasn't much taller than 4 feet in their own arena. he wasn't even that muscular and was a 0 level schoolboy, beating up 2nd level Rangers with his bare hands. he was practically unphased with 6 or more unconscious school cops.
my boyfriend can lay quite the smackdown and he still can, in fact, decay has made him weaker at it. but how do age penalties make sense when a 60 lbs 8 year old boy can singlehandedly defeat 6 350+ pound highly trained school bouncers with his bare hands without any prior training. without a scratch even?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's a matter of age always equates better, but I do think adult equals better than kid in the instance of the same person.
Hear me out.
For any instance of comparison between two things to be valid from a scientific standpoint, you need to eliminate all extraneous variables to the degree in which it is possible. Where you cannot eliminate variables, you introduce random sampling to average things out. It's all statistics and science. This is why when they test new drugs they get as large of a random sample as possible, eliminate outliers, etc. They want to make sure it is the one changed factor, the drug or the placebo, that causes any discovered changes, not random chance or circumstance or the like.
Because of this kind of thing you can't compare one kid to another adult. That changes too many variables. You have to compare one kid to himself or herself as an adult. In those instances, I can't see the kid being better... the adult has all the knowledge the kid had, much more experience, and a physically superior body.
Those 8 year old black belts are, by and large if they continue the exact same regimen of training, much more advanced in their capabilities as adults. If they don't continue that same training then you've thrown a monkey wrench in the gears; the variable of training. You can't say for sure whether it is age or lack of training which affects competence.
The other option is to compare a completely random (not hand-picked from certain examples) group of kids to an equally random group of adults. Again, the situation in this instance will remain the same. The adults will trump the kids, mentally and physically, hands down.
Ender's game was thrown out as an example of kids who are superior to the adults around them. But if you continue the series, those same kids, as teenagers and later adults, still have their tactical brilliance, etc., but have grown new skill sets and refined their existing skills. Bean constantly outsmarts his kids in one of...
additional point, Ive never seen an 8 year old black belt, 11-12 is vastly different than 8.
There are many things in martial arts/gymnastics that a child is more capable of more easily than an adult.
this was even eluded to during dick Greysons career going from robin to night wing, and the eventually culmination of him taking on the mantel of batman.
although more lithe and acrobatic, initially than bruce wayne ever was, as an adult Greaysons own fighting form was much more reminiscent of waynes, because there was just things a 6'2" beastly muscle guy (even an athletic one) can't do as well as the smaller framed child could (also seen in RL olympic athletes)
Also note child singers who become adults and their talent goes poof. (not always, some can make the transition, but it's common for the aging to be a career ender)
Int he case in the huge intellect child, sure… you could get an prepubescent brainac… but he would be lacking in other areas, specifically physical and will… he's not done cooking yet.
so he might have awesome spell power, and crappy saves and hit points, and also move at a 20 instead of 30.
Im ok with that.
Im not ok with making a character, and taking every advantage of the existing rules to create that character, and then, after taking every advantage the rules have to give you, then bucking the rules set and saying I want to be younger than the rules allow, and if you try to bring any reason into my fantasy you suck as a DM.
10-point buy Human Wizard starting stats
7 str, 8 dex, 13 con, 20 int, 8 wis, 8 cha.
*more than a functional character
10-point buy Human Fighter starting stats
17 str, 12 dex, 13 con, 10 int, 10 wis, 8 cha
*going to have a harder time, but not worthless, although debatable if fighter levels instead of warrior levels are worth the stat hit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
a child may have had less time to train than an adult when you measure lifespans, but a child who starts younger or takes their education more seriously is going to be more powerful than an adult who never took their education seriously. and even then, only the more recent years of experience in ones life matter, because as new skills are learned, old ones are tossed aside and forgotten, and as ones lifestyle changes, so does their body. when my boyfriend was in the third grade, he was pretty small, the size of a first grader, completely untrained at the time, and he beat the snot out of big beefy highly trained school security guards in unarmed combat, i'm talking 6'7" 350 lbs school bouncers were beaten by a boy who wasn't even 60 lbs or wasn't much taller than 4 feet in their own arena. he wasn't even that muscular and was a 0 level schoolboy, beating up 2nd level Rangers with his bare hands. he was practically unphased with 6 or more unconscious school cops.
my boyfriend can lay quite the smackdown and he still can, in fact, decay has made him weaker at it. but how do age penalties make sense when a 60 lbs 8 year old boy can singlehandedly defeat 6 350+ pound highly trained school bouncers with his bare hands without any prior training. without a scratch even?
firstly, we aren't debating that one child can be ahead of one other adult.
That's been covered above.we are specifically on the subject that the character creation rules are for creating an adult character, and that your boyfriend would have been weaker than his adult self, not his middle aged self, but is prime, 18-24 year old self.
also as to the story of 350 lb school guards?
Fat guys i wouldn't count as "2nd level rangers" by any means.
What school does a 3rd grader go to where it's populated by SIX "highly trained" combat school guards? Xaviers school for gifted youngsters?
Im not buying that story, sorry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
a child may have had less time to train than an adult when you measure lifespans, but a child who starts younger or takes their education more seriously is going to be more powerful than an adult who never took their education seriously. and even then, only the more recent years of experience in ones life matter, because as new skills are learned, old ones are tossed aside and forgotten, and as ones lifestyle changes, so does their body. when my boyfriend was in the third grade, he was pretty small, the size of a first grader, completely untrained at the time, and he beat the snot out of big beefy highly trained school security guards in unarmed combat, i'm talking 6'7" 350 lbs school bouncers were beaten by a boy who wasn't even 60 lbs or wasn't much taller than 4 feet in their own arena. he wasn't even that muscular and was a 0 level schoolboy, beating up 2nd level Rangers with his bare hands. he was practically unphased with 6 or more unconscious school cops.
my boyfriend can lay quite the smackdown and he still can, in fact, decay has made him weaker at it. but how do age penalties make sense when a 60 lbs 8 year old boy can singlehandedly defeat 6 350+ pound highly trained school bouncers with his bare hands without any prior training. without a scratch even?
firstly, we aren't debating that one child can be ahead of one other adult.
That's been covered above.we are specifically on the subject that the character creation rules are for creating an adult character, and that your boyfriend would have been weaker than his adult self, not his middle aged self, but is prime, 18-24 year old self.
also as to the story of 350 lb school guards?
Fat guys i wouldn't count as "2nd level rangers" by any means.What school does a 3rd grader go to where it's populated by SIX "highly trained" combat school guards? Xaviers school for gifted youngsters?
Im not buying that story, sorry.
10-point buy Human Wizard starting stats
7 str, 8 dex, 13 con, 20 int, 8 wis, 8 cha.
*more than a functional character10-point buy Human Fighter starting stats
17 str, 12 dex, 13 con, 10 int, 10 wis, 8 cha
*going to have a harder time, but not worthless, although debatable if fighter levels instead of warrior levels are worth the stat hit.
I *used* to play 10 point character builds up until 2010.
so even the adult characters looked like that, Hah!
yes it can easily be done with 10 points, and waiting until your character matures to get the other character points.
ESPECIALLY with a wizard, which is functionally a SAD class (although some save bonuses is definitely a bonus)
For experiences, I would reflect that with mental stat penalties.
I also don't feel that most realistic people ever progress passed level one. So the idea of a level 2 child class character makes no sense to me.
I could see starting a child off as a level 1 NPC class, then when they level up, making them a lvl 1 real class. For most parties though, that leveling should be done off-screen before the game starts.
This is also what I would probably do. I tracked down the product I was thinking of and it does what I'd like it to: http://paizo.com/products/btpy8i70?Learning-Curve-ApprenticeLevel-Character s
My issue with only using ability scores to capture the youngness is it just makes them feel crappier, not... newer. I get that people grow up fast in situations like that, so I'm fine with real levels soon. But starting the kid with the same capabilities as a new adult character feels like it's robbing me of that character's origin. It's the same as kicking off a new group at higher level - fine if that's the story you're telling, but I'm just not starting with a fresh character in that case.
And to be honest, if they were all starting and sticking together, I'd consider leaving the kid one level lower than the adults. Because they can absolutely learn to lay the smack down, but they have less training to anchor that skill on, so it's reasonable to me that it would take more experience for the lesson to set in.
Edit: Also pretty much everything Pendagast just said. I like the idea of targeted difference for better Acrobatics or what have you. Not that I was particularly good at jumping or balancing when I was younger. :-)
Edit 2: In case it wasn't clear from context, I'm just trying to say that a version of the NPC class thing makes sense to me and show you the blueprint. I think you could do children just fine with ability score and size changes with a bonus to tolerate bad media (I apologize to my parents for making them sit through the 90 TMNT movies). I just would rather play up less experience rather than less developed or in addition to it.
you could also use the 'half class' framework from one of the 3PP publishers(0-level characters) for the first couple levels and allow them to transition to a full class when pc/dm feel appropriate. That would at least allow the 'wizard' to start off with arcane spells etc.
you could also use the 'half class' framework from one of the 3PP publishers(0-level characters) for the first couple levels and allow them to transition to a full class when pc/dm feel appropriate. That would at least allow the 'wizard' to start off with arcane spells etc.
I like how people use bobby the barbarian in this thread for child adventures, but totally mis the fact that presto, years older than bobby, couldn't cast a single spell.
it was a school for disabled students, but because of local prejudices, the school was kept on lockdown like it were a prison and they had plenty of guards and a teacher who loved beating our left wrists silly with a ruler. which lead to violent reactions, which led to brawls.
1) What if your playing in a game with kids, I know a couple of parents who bring their kids along to play as well. This is for published modules not house brewed ones that are sanitized to be child safe. Admitedly these kids are more in the 10-11 range than 8-9 but the point stands.
If an actual kid wants to play as a younger character because they relate better, I'd allow it with no mechanical differences from adults. If they should be small size, I'd just treat it as a permanent reduce person or call them a medium 3 foot tall person. To me that's completely different than an adult who wants to roleplay a child because in the former case it's significantly about empowerment of their game world equivalent and the latter is defined by the differences.
it was a school for disabled students, but because of local prejudices, the school was kept on lockdown like it were a prison and they had plenty of guards and a teacher who loved beating our left wrists silly with a ruler. which lead to violent reactions, which led to brawls.
So it was likely that the guards were not trying to do more than slow down a child rather than administer a beating or otherwise take them down. In any case, it seems a bit of a stretch, you'll have to pardon us for our disbelief.
Despite being a kung fu master at age 8, there are a number of circumstances that might augment the child and still allow them to have age penalties -- even more so considering this child was apparently small for their age.
In any case, I am not sure that this story, entertaining as it is, is a good measuring stick against modifiers for child characters.
As has been said you've got for a wizard starting ages of . . .
Human: 17 to 27
Dwarf: 47 to 82
Elf: 120 to 170
Gnome: 49 to 94
Half-Elf: 23 to 38
Half-Orc: 16 to 26
Halfling: 24 to 44That's a pretty big range of 1st level characters I mean you can have an Elf who's 120 years old adventuring with a 16 year old Half-Orc with both them having only just achieved their first level. Yet a year later after RotRL they're both 17th level PCs and then they run into the freshly graduated 170 year old elf who after CENTURIES of learning has gained first level.
I graduated highschool with a girl who was 14 years old and went to university with a guy who was also one and another guy who went through the adult entry program. The simple fact is that the NPC classes as written just don't make sense either from a gameplay perspective (since most people don't actually use them for their NPC's and there are a huge range of classes that don't HAVE NPC variants even if you do use them) nor from a group perspective (people who could tolerate a child PC are a lot less likely to want a 3rd level adept tagging along).
As for people being uncomfortable with the themes and a child having to face something that could tear an adult to threads well I have to things to say to that . . .
1) What if your playing in a game with kids, I know a couple of parents who bring their kids along to play as well. This is for published modules not house brewed ones that are sanitized to be child safe. Admitedly these kids are more in the 10-11 range than 8-9 but the point stands.
2) Like I said this is a very dangerous world. Don't think modern times where you just avoid certain neighbourhoods if your a girl, white, black, from a certain school etc. This is a world where half a day away from the city you've got no law enforcement and in the city your really not all that safe anyway. I'd rather teach my kid to face the monsters and kill them then than hide them away and hope that in the likely scenario of the festival being...
That was His UMD failure for using that hat… he learned to cast ONE spell I think ever before the series ended… it was when they lost their magic items and dungeon master told them that the magic was in them all along.
whether or not you should penalize a child, should mostly be dependant on their lifestyle, experience, and current alterations. for example, a princess groomed to live a sedentary lifestyle could have a low strength, represented by her point expenditure, rather than a stat, class, or point buy penalty, while a violent child with rage issues would have a higher strength to represent point expenditure rather than a point buy bonus
you don't need to penalize levels, or point buy or stats, just tell the player to assign their stats appropriately. and allow free stat retrains based on consistent longterm lifestyle changes.
for example, instead of penalizing that 20 int 1st level wizard, cap her at a 15 before modifiers and allow her to retrain other attribute points to it as she gets older, such as losing strength and charisma with age due to decaying social skills and lack of excercise as an excuse to lower strength and charisma to raise intellect later.
it was a school for disabled students, but because of local prejudices, the school was kept on lockdown like it were a prison and they had plenty of guards and a teacher who loved beating our left wrists silly with a ruler. which lead to violent reactions, which led to brawls.So it was likely that the guards were not trying to do more than slow down a child rather than administer a beating or otherwise take them down. In any case, it seems a bit of a stretch, you'll have to pardon us for our disbelief.
Despite being a kung fu master at age 8, there are a number of circumstances that might augment the child and still allow them to have age penalties -- even more so considering this child was apparently small for their age.
In any case, I am not sure that this story, entertaining as it is, is a good measuring stick against modifiers for child characters.
it is a bit of a stretch, the guards might have been trying to slow us down, but it felt like they were there to inflict a bruising and they were called because of my boyfriends Violent Reaction to the teacher beating the 2 of us on the left wrist with a ruler because he hated lefties for some reason we didn't understand. the story seems a bit fantastic, but outliers are all over the place and my boyfriend, due to his dull life as a security guard at a grain silo, is nowhere near as strong as he was back then or as dangerous. because he spent ranks in diplomacy and intimidate over the years and retrained a bit of his outlier strength to wisdom and charisma. because he had a high strength for his size and a high intellect for his age, both due to his disabilities and chose to later on, avoid combats rather than start them, once we transferred to a different elementary school in the 5th grade and combats were no longer frequently forced. he slowly spent multiple years dropping from a 15 strength down to a 13 so he could boost his wisdom and charisma to 10 apiece. he still kept his 18 intellect and his diabetes, reduced his 14 constitution to 12ish so he could have a 12 charisma and 11 wisdom
whether or not you should penalize a child, should mostly be dependant on their lifestyle, experience, and current alterations. for example, a princess groomed to live a sedentary lifestyle could have a low strength, represented by her point expenditure, rather than a stat, class, or point buy penalty, while a violent child with rage issues would have a higher strength to represent point expenditure rather than a point buy bonus
you don't need to penalize levels, or point buy or stats, just tell the player to assign their stats appropriately. and allow free stat retrains based on consistent longterm lifestyle changes.
for example, instead of penalizing that 20 int 1st level wizard, cap her at a 15 before modifiers and allow her to retrain other attribute points to it as she gets older, such as losing strength and charisma with age due to decaying social skills and lack of excercise as an excuse to lower strength and charisma to raise intellect later.
not only would that NOT build a child prodigy character, who is vastly more intelligent than most adults around him/her (which actually exists) but makes no actual sense that an 8 year old would be stronger than an adult version of himself, even with a lack of exercise.
Not would it make any sense for the character to have build points he can't use to build a wizard with.children aren't better at something than their adult selves. being better at athletics is a function of size, and is reflected in the differences when a character is size small vs, medium.
a human child would have the same size benefits as an adult halfling.
you're trying to come up with ways to not penalize the character for being a child, by penalizing it.
If children really weren't weaker than their adults around them, then they wouldn't be children.
As it were, American society treats 14-17 year olds as children, but they aren't really, they are just sheltered socially and prevented from growing as rapidly as they could without said shelter, because adults want to "hold onto their babies" until they are 23.
the mark of man hood and woman hood are pretty clear, older societal traditions (like judaism) recognize it. but modern society isn't "comfortable" recognizing them as adults.
Even though they are adults much earlier NOW than they ever were previously.
'children' in other cultures learn and study things far more advanced than american children do (japan for example) and they are more advanced educationally.
AS the human gets older and older, it becomes harder and harder for them to learn, basically because they are growing slower and slower until they completely stop,
Humans can still learn and advance after they stop growing, but the process is much slower.
buuut 8 year olds really are still children, and are in even way, weaker, less people, than even the 14 year olds around them, and even the elite children, even ones with rage issues, are no match for an adult human that would actually try to intentionally kill or knock them out.
No match. weaker. no way to rationalize it, or argue it.
Well, personnaly I dont see why a DM would ban child character. Sure if there is someone with problem about child violence outside of the story telling (because there is already that kind of violence... I mean, the Orc tribe will slaughtered with a very liberal view of the age...), but outside that no, I don't see why.
Sure, it's not common, but it exist in fantasy literature and it's even extremely popular in Japanese stuff... Ok, the player need a good reason for that and a good background ( think about the reason and the consequence of that choice, and not doing it just for the "fun"), and some class may be block (wizard...) but no more than that. Just for the fun, one case that could easily be found in any setting: an elf orphan in a human family. Will he stay at home until his step parent die before leaving, or will he try to follow his human friend and go live on his own at 16-18 years old, even if he will look like a kid? Or why a child adopted by wolves should wait until 16 to do something? After all, the princess Monoke as been roaming in the wood long before her 15th birthday and Mooglie did almost all his adventure while beiing a child...
For the NPC stuff, screw that. It's simply bad for immersion (oh! I'm level 3! Time to forget what I learned for new stuff! Well, all the retraining rule is quite counter-immersive and a gift for power gamer IMO) and young characters get already some flaws. And more: it block you from some -class concept feature-. Oh you want to play a child witch name Kiki whit her black cat? Do you have trained your cat, because he is not your familiar until level 2....Oh you want to do a wolf child? Hope that WILD wolf will not leave you or bite....
Finally, about the young character being a danger for the rp.... Just no. First, those young character are by definition, unique. So no need to play it like troublesome kid, unless you want to be a troll in your party. You can play him just as any other character if you want. And anyway, I am not sure if a child sorcerer who do trick with his magicis worst for the group relation than the classic C-N half orc barbarian or the Loyal stupid paladin...or the gnome bard who do trick with his magic...
|
A note: I would be the only child there.Yes, the young characters rules should be enforced. It makes zero sense for an 11 year old to be as capable and competent as an adult adventuring professional. Except in 90 percent of genre fiction with a child protagonist, of course.
Except in 90% of genre fiction with a child protagonist, they're not adventuring with other adult protagonists.
Or they're doing so as sidekicks and aren't as capable and competent as the adults.
I would just like to take this opportunity to point out, that in some of the best fiction (namely, Marvel Comics) has children keeping up with adults all the time. For instance: Molly Hayes is an 11 year old with super strength who knocked out the Punisher and Wolverine (not at the same time). For another example: Every new team of X-People seems to start out as a team of children, but those children don't do too bad a job keeping up with the adults and fighting adult adversaries.
I also don't feel that most realistic people ever progress passed level one. So the idea of a level 2 child class character makes no sense to me.
This claim is not very well supported in the rules. If that's the case; How would you justify such a world without changing the rules? Why do the PCs keep running into level-appropriate NPCs? Where are all the magic items that can't be made by level 1 characters coming from (they're pretty numerous)? Why is it so easy to find a craftsman to hire to do a job?
To me, the obvious answer, is that being level 1 is representative of having no real skills or abilities. Teenagers are level 1. Children might be level 0 (or simply have stat modifiers). Any adult over 30 is /VERY/ unlikely to be less than level 2; unless they are remarkably unremarkable, and has the same quality and breadth of life experiences as your average 17-18 year old thug/cutpurse.
I suppose the other explanation is that levels are a gamist concept that doesn't exist in the game world, and therefore you can be just as experienced at level 1 as at level 20, you're just arbitrarily more powerful for no discernable reason. I'm more inclined to go with "They've been mercenaries for the past 2 years, why wouldn't they be level 4 Fighters?"
I would just like to take this opportunity to point out, that in some of the best fiction (namely, Marvel Comics) has children keeping up with adults all the time. For instance: Molly Hayes is an 11 year old with super strength who knocked out the Punisher and Wolverine (not at the same time). For another example: Every new team of X-People seems to start out as a team of children, but those children don't do too bad a job keeping up with the adults and fighting adult adversaries.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.Except in 90 percent of genre fiction with a child protagonist, of course.Except in 90% of genre fiction with a child protagonist, they're not adventuring with other adult protagonists.
Or they're doing so as sidekicks and aren't as capable and competent as the adults.
Which is a) older than the OP's proposed character.
b) On a team of kids, even if she's the youngest there.
c) Which is the general rule for child super-heroes - start out as a team of kids or as a sidekick.
c) The rules of superhero universes are different. In D&D power is directly related to experience and training. In superhero comics you can start out with vast cosmic power and no experience using it. An kid can wake up one morning with Hulk level strength.
Well, Oracle, Sorcerer and the likes looks really like random cosmic power...
So? The child sorcerer start weak (level 1) and grew stronger with time, just like you said. I don't see any problem with that.
I also don't feel that most realistic people ever progress passed level one. So the idea of a level 2 child class character makes no sense to me.This claim is not very well supported in the rules. If that's the case; How would you justify such a world without changing the rules? Why do the PCs keep running into level-appropriate NPCs? Where are all the magic items that can't be made by level 1 characters coming from (they're pretty numerous)? Why is it so easy to find a craftsman to hire to do a job?
Most PF people aren't realistic.
a child may have had less time to train than an adult when you measure lifespans, but a child who starts younger or takes their education more seriously is going to be more powerful than an adult who never took their education seriously. and even then, only the more recent years of experience in ones life matter, because as new skills are learned, old ones are tossed aside and forgotten, and as ones lifestyle changes, so does their body. when my boyfriend was in the third grade, he was pretty small, the size of a first grader, completely untrained at the time, and he beat the snot out of big beefy highly trained school security guards in unarmed combat, i'm talking 6'7" 350 lbs school bouncers were beaten by a boy who wasn't even 60 lbs or wasn't much taller than 4 feet in their own arena. he wasn't even that muscular and was a 0 level schoolboy, beating up 2nd level Rangers with his bare hands. he was practically unphased with 6 or more unconscious school cops.
my boyfriend can lay quite the smackdown and he still can, in fact, decay has made him weaker at it. but how do age penalties make sense when a 60 lbs 8 year old boy can singlehandedly defeat 6 350+ pound highly trained school bouncers with his bare hands without any prior training. without a scratch even?
firstly, we aren't debating that one child can be ahead of one other adult.
That's been covered above.we are specifically on the subject that the character creation rules are for creating an adult character, and that your boyfriend would have been weaker than his adult self, not his middle aged self, but is prime, 18-24 year old self.
also as to the story of 350 lb school guards?
Fat guys i wouldn't count as "2nd level rangers" by any means.What school does a 3rd grader go to where it's populated by SIX "highly trained" combat school guards? Xaviers school for gifted youngsters?
Im not buying that story, sorry.
Auren is known for "creative" posts. Personally I would ignore them and assume they are some sort of weird roleplay, rather than anything that is actually real.
beating up 2nd level Rangers with his bare hands.
Just tossing this out there Lumiere, but I would not consider school police to be 2nd level rangers. I'm not even sure I'd consider them 2nd level anything except maybe commoners. They might be 1st level warriors. Real people in reality pale in comparison to fantasy heroic classed characters.
|
It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?
I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.
They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.
Huh, wha????
You think that people should use their childcare as a bellwether as to decide if they can game with you????
I cannot more vociferously advocate against such a course of action. I however my have totally misunderstood you. Please feel free to corre3ct my misperception of what you were trying to say.
It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?
I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.
They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.
Huh, wha????
You think that people should use their childcare as a bellwether as to decide if they can game with you????
I cannot more vociferously advocate against such a course of action. I however my have totally misunderstood you. Please feel free to corre3ct my misperception of what you were trying to say.
As I understood it, if you let them play child characters the creepiness will come out if it's there, and then you'll know.
Wouldn't that potentially lead to some false positives? I mean, the same logic applied without bias would indicate that we are all universally brigands because our imaginary characters kill people and take their loot.
It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?
I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.
They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.
Huh, wha????
You think that people should use their childcare as a bellwether as to decide if they can game with you????
I cannot more vociferously advocate against such a course of action. I however my have totally misunderstood you. Please feel free to corre3ct my misperception of what you were trying to say.
As I understood it, if you let them play child characters the creepiness will come out if it's there, and then you'll know.
Yeah thejeff is more on point. I said child PCs not child Players, which would be an entirely different discussion.
Wouldn't that potentially lead to some false positives? I mean, the same logic applied without bias would indicate that we are all universally brigands because our imaginary characters kill people and take their loot.It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?
I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.
They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.
Huh, wha????
You think that people should use their childcare as a bellwether as to decide if they can game with you????
I cannot more vociferously advocate against such a course of action. I however my have totally misunderstood you. Please feel free to corre3ct my misperception of what you were trying to say.
As I understood it, if you let them play child characters the creepiness will come out if it's there, and then you'll know.
Yeah but they're bad people...
Yeah thejeff is more on point. I said child PCs not child Players, which would be an entirely different discussion.It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?
I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.
They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.
Huh, wha????
You think that people should use their childcare as a bellwether as to decide if they can game with you????
I cannot more vociferously advocate against such a course of action. I however my have totally misunderstood you. Please feel free to corre3ct my misperception of what you were trying to say.
As I understood it, if you let them play child characters the creepiness will come out if it's there, and then you'll know.
Oh believe me, it's even creepier when it's child players. x_x
Yeah but they're bad people...Wouldn't that potentially lead to some false positives? I mean, the same logic applied without bias would indicate that we are all universally brigands because our imaginary characters kill people and take their loot.It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?
I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.
They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.
Huh, wha????
You think that people should use their childcare as a bellwether as to decide if they can game with you????
I cannot more vociferously advocate against such a course of action. I however my have totally misunderstood you. Please feel free to corre3ct my misperception of what you were trying to say.
As I understood it, if you let them play child characters the creepiness will come out if it's there, and then you'll know.
Which ones are "they"? :P
|
|
Wouldn't that potentially lead to some false positives? I mean, the same logic applied without bias would indicate that we are all universally brigands because our imaginary characters kill people and take their loot.It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?
I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.
They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.
Huh, wha????
You think that people should use their childcare as a bellwether as to decide if they can game with you????
I cannot more vociferously advocate against such a course of action. I however my have totally misunderstood you. Please feel free to corre3ct my misperception of what you were trying to say.
As I understood it, if you let them play child characters the creepiness will come out if it's there, and then you'll know.
There are plenty of people I have gamed with that aren't even likely to be SO's that I still would let watch my child. The idea that you can judge someone after a few or even many gaming sessions is not really sufficient grounds to make this type of choice. This is a consideration that has nothing to do with this topic and shouldn't have even been broached.....
|
|
| 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.
I feel there is an implicit assumption in this post, and this discussion that the GM and the GM along is enforcing this rule. We don't have the context of the other players, who may agree with the GM. That being said the GM agreed to the OPs request that he play a young character, the GM then turned to the rules and said "what does the rules say about young characters" only to find rules handily prepared, to which (and we are speculating here) said, "here you go, rules for young characters, fill your boots." The OP doesn't like the RAW rules and has petitioned the GM to change them. A GM has a lot to do, and adjudicating new house rules, and making sure the other players feel they are being treated fairly in the process can be a difficult task. So the GM has fallen back on the rules and has chosen not to make an exception. The amount hate on for this GM who seemingly has agreed to the players demand for a non-standard character with a Yes seems unwarranted. The player might not like the rules, the community might not like the rules, but the GM has turned to the rules of the game he is running, found a rule that supports the characters request, said yes, and probably wants to get about the business of running the damn campaign, and not fiddling with the dials. The amount of forum hate she/he is getting just seems disproportional.
Moving from speculation, to introspection, in our gaming group the GM is granted final arbitrator on rules decisions, so long as the do so in a consistent manner (don't arbitrate it one way one week and another way another week*). The reason for this is the GM is responsible for facilitating the story, the NPCs and the PCs in a shared world. They are the only person who has a near-complete view, and is responsible for more than one thing. Things like character creation are discussed by the whole group, but finalized by the GM, who while we are creating one character each, must go forth and generate the encounters, and NPCs we are to be challenged by. We all own the game, and we all cede power to the GM to give her/him the room to build the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't that potentially lead to some false positives? I mean, the same logic applied without bias would indicate that we are all universally brigands because our imaginary characters kill people and take their loot.It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?
I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.
They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.
Huh, wha????
You think that people should use their childcare as a bellwether as to decide if they can game with you????
I cannot more vociferously advocate against such a course of action. I however my have totally misunderstood you. Please feel free to corre3ct my misperception of what you were trying to say.
As I understood it, if you let them play child characters the creepiness will come out if it's there, and then you'll know.
There are plenty of people I have gamed with that aren't even likely to be SO's that I still would let watch my child. The idea that you can judge someone after a few or even many gaming sessions is not really sufficient grounds to make this type of choice. This is a consideration that has nothing to do with this topic and shouldn't have even been broached.....
Well I mean, I've always kind of thought it's a bit disingenuous to judge somebody based on their fantasies, because most people no matter how bizarre their fantasies aren't going to have a collapsed sense of reality. I mean, every person who plays a FPS game isn't a loose cannon ready to blow people's heads off, everyone who plays RPGs isn't ready to kill and loot people, and people with bizarre sex fantasies (one of the top-five most common sex fantasies for women includes...forced activities...they don't like the other word on these forums; but that doesn't mean that they want to be forced into doing something or want to force someone into doing something).
Then there's the fact that if they DO seem to have interest in something really odd, and it is somehow connected to reality, it might not be in the way that you think. As disturbing as it might be, a child that was involved in...things of that nature...who later grows up, might still be wrestling with the altered perception of childhood that they themselves experienced; and might be working it out in their own minds.
I generally think blanket judgments of people is a bad idea. :P
|
|
Superman got stronger with time but even as Superboy he was among if not the most powerful being on earth and supergirl as a teenager was stated as being stronger than him as an adult.
Not withstanding that their is no racial equivalent to Superman to baseline against... There is nothing against applying MT to NPC classed child characters to get your superhuman superchildren...
Although as per the child character rules, I would probably rule Mythic Ascendency as an alternative entrance to adulthood, and as per those rules allow retraining into PC classes, retaining only the youth stats.
Wouldn't that potentially lead to some false positives? I mean, the same logic applied without bias would indicate that we are all universally brigands because our imaginary characters kill people and take their loot.It's not that wanting to be Harry Potter inherently makes you a pedophile. It doesn't. It's that some GMs, including myself, have had enough issues involving that side of the geek community, or other issues involving bad things and children, that an adult bringing a child PC to the table is very far outside our comfort zone.So we've went beyond calling players entitled brats to calling them sex-offenders... And for what?
I actually see this as a reason to allow child PCs.
They are either harmless, or let you know that you don't want to associate with that dude before he becomes such a good friend that you let him watch your kids.
Huh, wha????
You think that people should use their childcare as a bellwether as to decide if they can game with you????
I cannot more vociferously advocate against such a course of action. I however my have totally misunderstood you. Please feel free to corre3ct my misperception of what you were trying to say.
As I understood it, if you let them play child characters the creepiness will come out if it's there, and then you'll know.
Perhaps. I doubt it would actually be a very good test. Still, there's a difference between doing things that are a basic part of the game structure and trying to insert child sexuality into it, when that isn't normally part of the rules or the vast majority of adventures.
I'm not at all sure that the majority of pedophiles would choose to play children or would actually reveal anything.
I agree actually. I imagine that if it DID reveal any sort of underlying erotic fantasy, it would actually be something completely different from a psychological perspective. A girl I socialize with (who shall forever remain nameless in these discussions) has told me that she wants to be a little loli-girl, and she enjoys the idea of being submissive and/or adult things in that context, but with her as the object of the, uh, "problem".
I would hardly call her a pedophile. She's not attracted to kids, she wants to be one. The fact she's also super subby plays into that in a way that would probably confuse and bother most people.
even with oracles and sorcerers, we have RULES governing when their powers show up.
sorc and oracle can be much younger in most cases than trained classes like wizard and fighter.
but unlike a child prodigy with a 20 int, the sort or oracle has no control over when the body changes and the powers manifest.
The OP is stating his kid characters is so smart, it self taught wizardry, and is still a child.
if a sort/oracle were to wait for the change to come about…. it would happen in….drum roll ADULTHOOD! according to the existing rules.
and you're still dancing over the stat/capability disparity between a child and an adult.
Even tho the child COULD conceivably have a 20 INT, he would have to do so with the great detriment to all other stats, and should not get anywhere near the build points of the adult characters.
So you would have a small, half elf, with a 20 move, with an 8 con and a max of 4 hit points, with two first level spells to offer, who also likely has an 8 str.
Not only is this character NOT likely to be brought along with ANY party for fear of becoming meat sauce.
It probably wouldn't make it through the first serious encounter, given the way the power creep has happened over the years.
The argument that the kid would have all the same stats as an adult and should be allowed all skill points and build points is just plain ridiculous.
what happens when the character actually gets old enough to BE an adult?
Nothing?
It's effectively asking to have a more powerful character than everyone else.
I agree actually. I imagine that if it DID reveal any sort of underlying erotic fantasy, it would actually be something completely different from a psychological perspective. A girl I socialize with (who shall forever remain nameless in these discussions) has told me that she wants to be a little loli-girl, and she enjoys the idea of being submissive and/or adult things in that context, but with her as the object of the, uh, "problem".
I would hardly call her a pedophile. She's not attracted to kids, she wants to be one. The fact she's also super subby plays into that in a way that would probably confuse and bother most people.
That is actually the other issue that I wanted to address but didn't.
if a sort/oracle were to wait for the change to come about…. it would happen in….drum roll ADULTHOOD! according to the existing rules.
and you're still dancing over the stat/capability disparity between a child and an adult.
Even tho the child COULD conceivably have a 20 INT, he would have to do so with the great detriment to all other stats, and should not get anywhere near the build points of the adult characters.
So you would have a small, half elf, with a 20 move, with an 8 con and a max of 4 hit points, with two first level spells to offer, who also likely has an 8 str.
.
Which rule? Never seen any rule saying that say " when the beard comes, so do the spirit"... And even if it would, i dont see why it should be respect in that case...
And i am all for the stat penalties (-2 to for, con, wis, +2 to dex), but all against the Npc class.
That is actually the other issue that I wanted to address but didn't.I agree actually. I imagine that if it DID reveal any sort of underlying erotic fantasy, it would actually be something completely different from a psychological perspective. A girl I socialize with (who shall forever remain nameless in these discussions) has told me that she wants to be a little loli-girl, and she enjoys the idea of being submissive and/or adult things in that context, but with her as the object of the, uh, "problem".
I would hardly call her a pedophile. She's not attracted to kids, she wants to be one. The fact she's also super subby plays into that in a way that would probably confuse and bother most people.
I've found that "weird" is actually the true normal. I'm not sure why some people feel comfortable opening up to me in these ways (one of my other girl friends I hung out with as a teenager was a bit embarrassed when I asked about a story she was writing, which she quietly told me was a forced-fantasy which was kind of an odd thought to me as a teenager). Meanwhile, there's my submissive wannabe-loli girl friend, and I've played D&D with her plenty of times (and her D&D interests include lolis, vampires, succubi, and things with fluffy tails, sometimes in combinatons thereof, and that can get kind of weird sometimes; especially since she absolutely loves the fact that her current character is a legal target for planar binding and has informed me that she has great faith in me being enough of a dick as a GM to make use of that fact).
As someone that has had to wrestle with being the "victim"* of a SO myself and coming to terms with that, I've realized that people are a diverse lot, and judging people at face value or what you may even think isn't face value is a bad idea. People are complex. It takes a lot more than a fantasy to make someone cross a line that's considered unacceptable, and what it takes varies from person to person, but judging people because of their interests, no matter how bizarre they might seem is probably going to be an incorrect assessment.
*: I use this term loosely. I don't feel particularly victimized. About the closest thing to being victimized would have been the uncertainty of what the things that happened meant, the near innate knowledge that I couldn't talk about it openly, and wondering how normal and/or okay it was and/or if anyone would be mad if they found out. Perhaps because of my experience, it makes me less ready to come out guns blazing when discussing people and their complexities.
if a sort/oracle were to wait for the change to come about…. it would happen in….drum roll ADULTHOOD! according to the existing rules.
and you're still dancing over the stat/capability disparity between a child and an adult.
Even tho the child COULD conceivably have a 20 INT, he would have to do so with the great detriment to all other stats, and should not get anywhere near the build points of the adult characters.
So you would have a small, half elf, with a 20 move, with an 8 con and a max of 4 hit points, with two first level spells to offer, who also likely has an 8 str.
.
Which rule? Never seen any rule saying that say " when the beard comes, so do the spirit"... And even if it would, i dont see why it should be respect in that case...
And i am all for the stat penalties (-2 to for, con, wis, +2 to dex), but all against the Npc class.
Honestly if someone really wants to represent a sort of transitionary phase between a useless classed kid and a kid that's now a competent and skillful individual, I'd probably just let 'em roll their character as normal but apply a pseudo-negative level to represent their inexperience, then shortly after they have been adventuring for a little while, remove it. Kids grow up fast these days, especially when it's "parry this, or die".