What would you do if a player wanted to be a human baby?

[Oko and Qailee]

Obv you would have to put a lot of attribute negatives (except charisma) and it would be very weak "race". But how would you guys stat it as an LA +0 race (or the first ever LA -1)? I'm thinking like, 1-2 years, maybe talking age but not walking.

I know it's a ridiculous concept ("baby's can't swing swords!" (yes, but most people cant survive 100+ ft falls like a barbarian either)), but let's just say you had a stubborn player and had to cater to their random whim.

What would you do?

Assuming an average human is 10 in all stats. I'd probably do a -8 to Con, Wis, Str, and Dex. (That would put it lifting 4.5lbs). -4 to Int, but +4 to Charisma. These stats could change with age.

Small sized.
No bonus feat at first level.
No bonus skill points at lvl 1.
Illiterate
Babies receive a +2 on all diplomacy checks to get food, water, and other survival necessities.

TBH I guess this would be a template.

Why would you ever nerf your character?

No joke, I know some people who can make characters better even with probably all these nerfs than some other people I know. The point is, if you're desperate for flavor or something.

Idk, thoughts?

[Rhynn]

Str 0 (they effectively can't physically affect anything that matters), Dex 0 (they can't take meaningful actions), a big Con penalty (they are vulnerable to illness), Int 1 (effectively about as smart as a dog, maybe), Wis 1 (senses aren't very useful), Cha 1 (barely has a sense of self or ability to differentiate self from mother, etc.).

It's a terrible, pointless idea and I can't come up with a scenario where anyone but a terrible, gimmicky, annoying player would insist on it.

Edit: Oh, sorry, you said 1-2 years. I interpret "baby" as up to 1 year; 1-3 would be "toddler"?

[thethird]

I would be a Unholy Scion...

[Oko and Qailee]

Str 0 (they effectively can't physically affect anything that matters), Dex 0 (they can't take meaningful actions), a big Con penalty (they are vulnerable to illness), Int 1 (effectively about as smart as a dog, maybe), Wis 1 (senses aren't very useful), Cha 1 (barely has a sense of self or ability to differentiate self from mother, etc.).

It's a terrible, pointless idea and I can't come up with a scenario where anyone but a terrible, gimmicky, annoying player would insist on it.


All that makes sense, but Wis 1 mean's it can't figure anything out. Even month old babies have some form of problem solving capabilities.

A dog has higher than int 1.

Charisma 1 also? Charisma is like a "force of will" on a person and can be attributed to both appearance and communicative abilitity. Maybe they can't talk, but babies can get what they want one way or another.

[Oko and Qailee]

Edit: Oh, sorry, you said 1-2 years. I interpret "baby" as up to 1 year; 1-3 would be "toddler"?

Yes.

I'm silly lol. I was imagining right before walking age.

[questionmark693]

They have to have at least one str/dex, or they can't move. One wisdom or they're in a coma. Two intelligence I'd say, cuz they are capable of learning.

[Gildedragon]

"No" that's what I'd do. Starting ages set a nice limit to minimum adventuring age

[Rhynn]

All that makes sense, but Wis 1 mean's it can't figure anything out. Even month old babies have some form of problem solving capabilities.

A dog has higher than int 1.

Charisma 1 also? Charisma is like a "force of will" on a person and can be attributed to both appearance and communicative abilitity. Maybe they can't talk, but babies can get what they want one way or another.

Babies/infants obviously develop at tremendous speed during the first year, but generally, while they have amazing potential, their ability to get anything meaningful done is zero. They largely operate on reflex and instinct.

Charisma, IMO and IIRC by the DMG, implies having a sense of self (even a mindless undead skeleton knows that that other skeleton there is not itself), and babies are barely just developing that. And Wis 1 mostly just means that the baby has (not nearly big enough) penalties to Listen, Sense Motive, and Spot - which makes sense. Even if the baby hears or sees something, it largely can't make sense of it. Oh, and Will saves - somehow I don't see babies doing well at resisting spells, either...

And, honestly, between a newborn and my dog, I think the dog's got more applicable smarts.

If we're talking 1-2 year olds, yeah, it all changes, and so very, very fast.

Edit:

They have to have at least one str/dex, or they can't move. One wisdom or they're in a coma. Two intelligence I'd say, cuz they are capable of learning.

Good point. Once they're crawling age they can have Str 1 and Dex 1. :smallamused:

Really, though, this is a good illustration of why babies shouldn't be statted.

[AuraTwilight]

Just say no. It's a stupid idea because the only outcomes are "Murdered Baby" and "Murderous Baby". Gameplay flaws aside, your other players might not even be comfortable with that.

[Invader]

Yup I'd say no because it's either going to lead to ridiculousness or something bad, either way I think it's a bad idea, it doesn't work for role play and it doesn't work mechanically so there's not really a playable character there.

[Emmerask]

Slap him with the phb until he comes to his senses.

[Elderand]

The only way I'd allow that is if it was an unholy scion, and then you're not playing a baby, you're effectively playing the mother and a templated baby cohort.

[Flickerdart]

A baby does not have the mental capacity to train in an adventuring class. This is not flavour; this is the exact opposite of flavour. It's a farce.

[danzibr]

Talking but not walking? You mean jabbering? My son walked before 10 months but now at ~2.5 years he's just now assembling good English sentences.

Still, playing as a super toddler could be cool.

[Teal]

Still, playing as a super toddler could be cool.

I would limit that with all other players also being super toddlers, and the BBEG is "the sandcastle at the end of the playground."

[Sith_Happens]

I would limit that with all other players also being super toddlers, and the BBEG is "the sandcastle at the end of the playground."

Well, Bunnies & Burrows is already a thing, I guess that would just be the next logical step...

...

:eek:

Rugrats RPG

This must happen.

[Psyren]

1) "Acquire" baby
2) True Mind Switch
3) ???
4) PC Baby

Note: you may be able to do this with a fetus as well. If the mother blocks line of effect, use Transdimensional Burrowing Power.

For an even more evil take, use Mind Seed on a baby. Bonus points if the heroes are going to burst in your sanctum the next day and kill you. After all, revenge is a dish best served cold. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TykeBomb)

[graymachine]

No stats, and I would call the player an idiot; this is going down a dark road that will have no benefitial outcome, in any reasonal storyline.

[Ashtagon]

Just say no. It's a stupid idea because the only outcomes are "Murdered Baby" and "Murderous Baby". Gameplay flaws aside, your other players might not even be comfortable with that.

This.

Also, size class "Small"? All I can say is, ouch.

For children, here's my take on it: http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=8366, although I still wouldn't consider these for PCs.

[Mr Beer]

Really, really hate this idea; I would laugh if a player suggested it and then stare at them blankly when they convinced me they meant it. And then I would say "no".

The closest concept that I would consider would be a series of short, appropriately powered childhood adventures starting around age 6+ as a prequel to a longer campaign and a way of developing a backstory. But every player would be an infant and also capable of walking and talking.

[gr8artist]

In all seriousness, this is probably a ridiculous request for the sole purpose of making his next ridiculous request seem less absurd by comparison.
"Oh, I can't be a baby human? Well, how about a baby dragon?"

[Occasional Sage]

Please tell your player that as cool as The Incredibles was to watch, Jack Jack is not a playable character. Also, why do you feel forced to comply with the crazy whim? Your job is not to cater, it's to guide and shape the game.

Also also, as a parenthuman I find the idea of "toddler murder-hobo" grotesque and repugnant.

[ideasmith]

Just in case:

Baby Template_(3.5e_Template) (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Baby_(3.5e_Template))

[mistformsquirrl]

I would limit that with all other players also being super toddlers, and the BBEG is "the sandcastle at the end of the playground."

Up until this post I was thinking "This is a dumb idea... I'm willing to let people play pretty implausible characters, but a toddler is ridiculous on a whole nother level..."

However in this particular context? I love the idea.

@Sith Happens - Hah! Yes! >_> That would be hilarious and awesome.

[Kudaku]

I'm not sure what game system you're playing, but the Pathfinder book Ultimate Campaign has rules for playing youths - I believe the youngest character you could make would be 9 years old, and that character would be strictly limited in what classes he could pick. He gets a -2 penalty to strength, constitution, and wisdom, and a +2 bonus to dexterity due to his age. When the character would reach adulthood these bonuses (and penalties) would go away.

Other than that, I am going to have to agree with everyone else here - a toddlers is not a conductive character for any kind of normal campaign.

That having been said, you could base a campaign around a storyline where ALL the characters are toddlers - The Great Cookie Jar Heist!

[Chronos]

In general, the DM's default answer to players should be "yes", and then figure out how to make it happen.

But that's only in general. There are still rare exceptions, cases where you should say "no". And this is one of them.

[Azernak0]

...

As a DM, I have let some serious stuff slide. Someone playing a baby would definitely not be something I would allow. For one, it sounds a kind of 'troll' move, like he would just sit there drooling, babbling, and making statements about how "I am starting to smell and am crying." Funny for about two minutes of a thought experiment but the unpleasant thought of infanticide would just lead me to calmly asking the player "what the hell is wrong with you?!"

I am oddly curious what their intentions are though.

[Gerrtt]

I'd tell them that there are websites where people who like to dress up and role play as babies/parents can get together, and my game table isn't that kind of place.

[Emperor Tippy]

1) "Acquire" baby
2) True Mind Switch
3) ???
4) PC Baby

Note: you may be able to do this with a fetus as well. If the mother blocks line of effect, use Transdimensional Burrowing Power.

For an even more evil take, use Mind Seed on a baby. Bonus points if the heroes are going to burst in your sanctum the next day and kill you. After all, revenge is a dish best served cold. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TykeBomb)

That's what I thought as well. It's a great way to establish a legit identity if you are willing to invest a few decades.

Besides, it's a great plot to replace the newborn heir the first night before he gets blessed with the imperial families permanent mind blank. ;)

[Flickerdart]

Besides, it's a great plot to replace the newborn heir the first night before he gets blessed with the imperial families permanent mind blank. ;)
What kind of imperial family doesn't Mind Blank in the womb with Burrowing Power? :smalltongue:

[Emperor Tippy]

What kind of imperial family doesn't Mind Blank in the womb with Burrowing Power? :smalltongue:

The kind that doesn't know about the dread powers of the Elan conspiracy that uses Reality Revision to drop their body (with baby mind) into a Quintessence bath on a well defended and warded demiplane while they carefully take over the empire.

[Flickerdart]

The kind that doesn't know about the dread powers of the Elan conspiracy that uses Reality Revision to drop their body (with baby mind) into a Quintessence bath on a well defended and warded demiplane while they carefully take over the empire.
But does the Elan conspiracy know that they themselves are being gradually replaced by permanently metamorphed mind flayers, who in turn are being assimilated by agents of the Empire?

[Lord_Gareth]

But does the Elan conspiracy know that they themselves are being gradually replaced by permanently metamorphed mind flayers, who in turn are being assimilated by agents of the Empire?

When did we start talking about Metal Gear Solid?

[Talya]

Just say no. It's a stupid idea because the only outcomes are "Murdered Baby" and "Murderous Baby". Gameplay flaws aside, your other players might not even be comfortable with that.

Say yes.

Then introduce him to a baby-eating ogre.

[angry_bear]

Say yes.

Then introduce him to a baby-eating ogre.

http://www.koboldsatemybaby.com/

I'm pretty sure that's what you meant.

Unless the player wants to rock a character like Stewie Griffin, I really don't see the point of playing a baby. And playing something like Stewie means he's not actually playing a baby... I dunno, just tell him to play a fetishist Halfling who likes to pretend he's a baby I guess? Or better yet, tell him to smarten up and play something at least half sensible...

[Grayson01]

Yeah I second the no. Players need some limits. And how exactly do they have a class except maybe Sorc, favorite Soul, or Warlock? The age limits for starting age are set because it takes time to learn the skills needed for a class.



"No" that's what I'd do. Starting ages set a nice limit to minimum adventuring age

[Deepbluediver]

What would you do?

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254756)'s my thread on age categories for humanoids.

Here's the sections with the most relevant information-

Infants: Infants are a special category of creature, they have no alignment, no class levels, all ability scores are 1, have a max of 1 HP, and are 2 or more size categories smaller than adults of their race. Under normal circumstances, infants are not useable as characters.

Children: Children are creatures old enough to walk, talk, and get into trouble from which adventurers frequently need to rescue them. Children are one size category smaller than an adult of their race, which affects AC, carrying capacity, and other factors normally dependent on size.
They have 1 racial Hit Die and no class levels, and recieve a -6 penalty to all ability scores, compared to adults of their race. (these changes replace other modifications to stats normally based on size) The minimum ability score for a humanoid child, including racial modifiers, is 3.
Children are slower than adults of their race normally are (20 ft. speed becomes 15 ft; 30 becomes 20, 40 becomes 30). They also take a -30% penalty to any experience points they recieve because they are still devoping the mental traits and long-term memory needed for growth and learning.

Basically, you can't have a "baby" character. They lack the various physical and mental characteristics (both in terms of strength and development, so no a buffed baby would still count as a baby) to offer and meaningful contribution to combat.
Anyone who knowingly carried or thrust a baby into combat with the kinds of challenges the adventurers face would probably get pushed at least one step down the alignment chart.

[Lord Vukodlak]

In a campaign I ran there was an NPC who was cursed into the form of a baby. He still retained his mental ability scores, the ability to speak(despite a lack of teeth) and his class abilities. As a upper mid level psion it was more embarrassing then diminishing to his power.

The Psion was cursed by a fey goddess so there was no easy fix for his predicament. At his side was his child hood friend a lower level rogue who posed as his mother. They traveled to distant locals searching for a way to restore him to his proper age they encountered the party a few times before they found out the truth.

But really as a PC it doesn't work.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I generally make an effort to bend over backwards to help players fulfill their character concepts. That being said, some concepts don't deserve your respect.

A "baby" from certain classes that allow it to fly and cast spells could be workable, but it will probably just be stupid. Same for the "(dark) choosen one" and caretaker.

I think the best "Stewie" would be a BBEG cursed back into babyhood and they wouldn't feel like a baby mechanically they'd just be small, and have whatever arbitrary low physical stats you wanted to assign.

[killem2]

Nope. I would say absolutely not. I would not even dignify it with a reason. If they can't reasonably see the issue with it, then they have problems.

[Studoku]

Slap him with the phb until he comes to his senses.
This is completely inappropriate and any DM who considers this should be ashamed of themselves. You're a DM- you slap them with the DMG.

[Ashtagon]

Any player who demands to play a baby must give in to my equally ridiculous demand to use FATAL as the rules system. :smallyuk:

[Deepbluediver]

This is completely inappropriate and any DM who considers this should be ashamed of themselves. You're a DM- you slap them with the DMG.

Stuff like this is why the forum really needs a "like" function.

[Selenir]

I have a campaign where a few of the PCs are toddlers from the "real world" who stumbled through a magic mirror and found themselves in "fantasy world," given magical powers. They joined up with an ancient Archmage whose immortality spell went wrong (trapping him in a baby's body forever), a powerful four-year-old sorcerer princess (and her gigantic bodyguard), and a motherly druid.

For simplicity's sake, I just made the kids human, but Small sized, with penalties to strength and constitution but bonuses to dexterity and charisma.

One of the kids has enough ranks in Ride (from riding his toy horsie) to ride the druid's Wolf animal companion. The bodyguard often carries the princess, and the Archmage's teddy bear Construct Familiar can grow giant to fight for him with a simple enlarge person shared with it.

It's a fun, light-hearted campaign. They did the Whispering Cairn adventure and ended up winning the encounter with the ghost of Alastor Land by comforting the deceased farmboy with the animated teddy bear, rather than trying to fight him.

[buttcyst]

baby's turn: fort save... you are puking... will save... now crying

next round...

baby's turn: fort save... you are burping

next round...

baby's turn: wisdom check... you are hungry... will save... you are crying

next round...

baby's turn: will save... you are crying... wisdom check... and hungry

next round...

baby's turn: wisdom check... you need to be held or you lose the next 10 turns throwing a tantrum... will save... start crying


go ahead and play a baby lol... even scion babies need to be held sometimes


and as for adventuring, it is far too dangerous for you to go outside baby, even you little scion

[Telonius]

I'd allow it, with an appropriate backstory as to why this adventurer is a baby. ("Historia Taliesin" is an example of such a backstory; anything less awesome will not be allowed).

[Nettlekid]

Sorry, I don't get it, why is everyone so ferociously saying "NO, HE CAN'T BE A BAYBEE!"? Like, it's a fantasy game. You can be shapeshifters and robots and whatever. If the player really wanted to be a baby even after you said no, he could be a Wizard and Polymorph into one. I mean, I guess you have to ask why he wants to be a baby. As has been said, a baby Fighter would logically be pretty ineffective, but just a slightly refluffed Sorcerer or any divine caster, where you say that the magic bursts forth erratically but instinctively, could work. A bit like Misty's Togepi using Metronome in Pokemon. If they don't play a baby well, and purposely put it into harmful situations, then don't be actively lenient and protect it from the harms of the world, but don't be mean and put it into harm's way either. If the player wants to be a baby, really, why not?

Personally, I second Psyren and Tippy's suggestions of True Mind Switch. I love the idea of a powerful Psion baby. Or, if you're saying that a baby has animal intelligence, get a Druid to Awaken your baby. Now you can have an adult mind, or at least a mind capable of adult thoughts, but incredibly naive and with little memory of the world. Probably gets frustrated with its podgy legs. I would be lying if I said I'd never thought about playing a baby.

[Mutazoia]

Personally I would say "ok...your a baby. The rest of the party is going on an adventure, your stuck at home with the baby sitter...see you next campaign after your character grows up."

[Talya]

I believe there are several Corrupt spells in the book of Vile Darkness that require body parts of children as material components.

My evil wizard puts the baby in its spell component pouch.

[Emmerask]

Sorry, I don't get it, why is everyone so ferociously saying "NO, HE CAN'T BE A BAYBEE!"? Like, it's a fantasy game. You can be shapeshifters and robots and whatever. If the player really wanted to be a baby even after you said no, he could be a Wizard and Polymorph into one. I mean, I guess you have to ask why he wants to be a baby. As has been said, a baby Fighter would logically be pretty ineffective, but just a slightly refluffed Sorcerer or any divine caster, where you say that the magic bursts forth erratically but instinctively, could work. A bit like Misty's Togepi using Metronome in Pokemon. If they don't play a baby well, and purposely put it into harmful situations, then don't be actively lenient and protect it from the harms of the world, but don't be mean and put it into harm's way either. If the player wants to be a baby, really, why not?

Personally, I second Psyren and Tippy's suggestions of True Mind Switch. I love the idea of a powerful Psion baby. Or, if you're saying that a baby has animal intelligence, get a Druid to Awaken your baby. Now you can have an adult mind, or at least a mind capable of adult thoughts, but incredibly naive and with little memory of the world. Probably gets frustrated with its podgy legs. I would be lying if I said I'd never thought about playing a baby.

Because some dms want at least some semblance of a "serious" campaign.
In fact the only games where I allow ridiculous concepts like playing a baby or a bunny that can talk and is a sorcerer are one shots... because in all honesty the "thats funny" part of this wears off extremely quick
after that its just the "oh that guy who completely ruins the mood of the campaign is talking again :smallsigh:" part...

:smallwink:

/edit and from the ops post I am rather sure that he is aiming for a more serious campaign style, else he would not have asked.


I believe there are several Corrupt spells in the book of Vile Darkness that require body parts of children as material components.

My evil wizard puts the baby in its spell component pouch.

every wizard has already multiple baby parts in it (if the baby parts are cheap enough)... which means all wizards are evil, what good person would carry baby parts around? :smallbiggrin:

[Deepbluediver]

Sorry, I don't get it, why is everyone so ferociously saying "NO, HE CAN'T BE A BAYBEE!"? Like, it's a fantasy game. You can be shapeshifters and robots and whatever.

Because what you are describing isn't really a baby any more, it's just a character with very bad physical attribute scores. What you want apparently isn't a baby, it's a Brain-in-a-jar. (which I didn't think you could play as until reading about in on the forum)

[Flickerdart]

I believe there are several Corrupt spells in the book of Vile Darkness that require body parts of children as material components.

My evil wizard puts the baby in its spell component pouch.
That seems redundant. Every spell component pouch already contains unlimited babies.

[Mutazoia]

Sorry, I don't get it, why is everyone so ferociously saying "NO, HE CAN'T BE A BAYBEE!"? Like, it's a fantasy game. You can be shapeshifters and robots and whatever. If the player really wanted to be a baby even after you said no, he could be a Wizard and Polymorph into one. I mean, I guess you have to ask why he wants to be a baby. As has been said, a baby Fighter would logically be pretty ineffective, but just a slightly refluffed Sorcerer or any divine caster, where you say that the magic bursts forth erratically but instinctively, could work. A bit like Misty's Togepi using Metronome in Pokemon. If they don't play a baby well, and purposely put it into harmful situations, then don't be actively lenient and protect it from the harms of the world, but don't be mean and put it into harm's way either. If the player wants to be a baby, really, why not?

Personally, I second Psyren and Tippy's suggestions of True Mind Switch. I love the idea of a powerful Psion baby. Or, if you're saying that a baby has animal intelligence, get a Druid to Awaken your baby. Now you can have an adult mind, or at least a mind capable of adult thoughts, but incredibly naive and with little memory of the world. Probably gets frustrated with its podgy legs. I would be lying if I said I'd never thought about playing a baby.

Well the biggest problem is that a baby (or toddler) in a campaign setting wouldn't last 5 minutes. So what if they are really a Xth level sorcerer in the body of a 5 year old. Their body just wouldn't be able to keep up with an adults. They would have horrible move speeds and would fail even the easiest con checks. A baby/toddler wouldn't be able to ride a horse, and couldn't walk long distances.... There are a ton of reasons why "no" is the only answer to this question. In order for a baby/toddler character to survive the GM would have to tone down the encounters, making things way to easy for the rest of the party.

This is basically the polar opposite of the "my character is the offspring of two Gods and has a 25 in all stats and can't die because his parents won't allow it" routine (and yes...I had some one actually try to pull this one once).

[Emperor Tippy]

Well the biggest problem is that a baby (or toddler) in a campaign setting wouldn't last 5 minutes. So what if they are really a Xth level sorcerer in the body of a 5 year old. Their body just wouldn't be able to keep up with an adults. They would have horrible move speeds and would fail even the easiest con checks. A baby/toddler wouldn't be able to ride a horse, and couldn't walk long distances.... There are a ton of reasons why "no" is the only answer to this question. In order for a baby/toddler character to survive the GM would have to tone down the encounters, making things way to easy for the rest of the party.

This is basically the polar opposite of the "my character is the offspring of two Gods and has a 25 in all stats and can't die because his parents won't allow it" routine (and yes...I had some one actually try to pull this one once).

You can play as a tasty sammich if you want just fine, and still keep up with the party without a problem.

Hell I've played characters who were children. Cindy is kinda known for being an incredibly powerful wizard while still a child.

[Lord_Gareth]

You can play as a tasty sammich if you want just fine, and still keep up with the party without a problem.

I used this trick against my players once. They kicked in the door to what turned out to be the BBEG's dining room and saw a bunch of chairs with their names on them arranged around a long table with a decadent feast laid out atop it. The BBEG also had a chair, but his plate contained only a ham sandwich. When the party Barbarian went to eat it his head exploded and the sandwich rose, crackling with psionic energy, and boomed out, "NOW YOU WILL SUFFER!"

[Talya]

Well the biggest problem is that a baby (or toddler) in a campaign setting wouldn't last 5 minutes. So what if they are really a Xth level sorcerer in the body of a 5 year old. .


Infant Druid > Adult Monk. :smallbiggrin:

[cerin616]

All that makes sense, but Wis 1 mean's it can't figure anything out. Even month old babies have some form of problem solving capabilities.


There is actually a huge amount of psych studies that indicate a month old baby doesn't have the cognitive sense of continuity. Or in a easier sense, if it cant see something, that something no longer exists. Thats a bit hindering on the wis scale

[Ashtagon]

As someone noted upthread, this situation inevitably leads either to a murderous (as in "kills things and takes their stuff") baby, or a murdered baby. In the context of babies, neither option really sits well. That is the single most compelling reason not to allow the idea.

[TheStranger]

Add me to the list of people saying this is a horrible idea. From the murderous baby potential to the fact that it's horribly impractical, there are a lot of ways this could go wrong.

Also, your player is essentially asking to play the biggest Mary Sue ever (this is probably an exaggeration - please don't post counterexamples). They want you to change the rules so they can be so special they can kill dragons as a newborn.

[Mutazoia]

Hell I've played characters who were children. Cindy is kinda known for being an incredibly powerful wizard while still a child.

Say hello to Monty Haul for me next time you game with him ;)