Child PC, just change size?

[gogogome]

Is just changing the size modifier from medium to small enough for child PCs? This PC is 12 years old instead of 16.

We are fluffing this PC is a genius/prodigy so he can reach level 1 of a class instead of those NPC classes at the age of 12.
Physical Scores are already affected by size.
Mental scores arguably don't change. 12 year olds are just as smart as 16 year olds, just less experience.

[Necroticplague]

PF has the Young template that could be backported to DnD without much problem. -4STR and CON, +4 DEX, -2 natural armor, and decrease size by one category. -1 CR, which translates to DnD as LA: -1.

[Gildedragon]

As per the Young template, they experience a -2 to Wisdom

[Urpriest]

"Small" seems a bit small for a 12-year old unless they're especially short. Remember, Dwarves are Medium.

Honestly I'd probably just have the player make a character who happens to have low physical ability scores and fluff them as younger.

[frost890]

There is a section in the players handbook about aging effects.

[Honest Tiefling]

As per the Young template, they experience a -2 to Wisdom

Given what I know of children, this seems accurate. I also don't know if I consider a 12 year old to be as knowledgeable or as smart as a 16 year old. Smart being defined as reasoning ability and the ability to think on one's feet.

[Troacctid]

There is a section in the players handbook about aging effects.
Same section also bars players from playing characters below adult age, IIRC.

There are no rules for statting children in D&D 3.5, barring odd exceptions like wyrmling dragons. I think this was intentional, because the designers didn't like the implications.

[Âmesang]

Wouldn't a child PC be a recipé for a sociopath? :smalltongue: "I killed another goblin! Yay!"

[Honest Tiefling]

Wouldn't a child PC be a recipé for a sociopath? :smalltongue: "I killed another goblin! Yay!"

I had assumed that putting a child through both mental and physical trauma was the point, actually. Else the tone of the piece can get really weird...

[Âmesang]

Actually is anyone else reminded of that child barbarian character from the old Dungeons & Dragons cartoon? Bobby?

[gogogome]

I don't like PF, or D20 modern, both of which sort of has child characters. d20 modern's child limit is age 11, our PC is age 12. If anything d20 modern would be closest to RAW right since its made by WotC and uses the 3.5 rules.

Interesting point about dwarves still being medium. but I don't think height alone is a factor. Gnomes can be taller than some dwarves yet they still remain small.

Lower wisdom argument is sound reasoning, but I dunno. Part of me just wants to apply the size modifier and end it there.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, I don't think that's a bad approach in some cases. Firstly, how jarring will no adjustment to mental scores be for the rest of the party? If you have a grim and gritty atmosphere with a bunch of scholars or a play style based on rollplay this might come up more.

Secondly, is it wholly a natural child? You could make arguments for a creepy child type PC, such as a younger sorcerer who might have some mental influence from the bloodline to sidestep these issues.

And thirdly, what array does the player want? If the highest mental score is a 14 in charisma, I think it'll probably be fine.

[RoboEmperor]

d20 modern says ages 12-15 use original scores, no adjustments, and arguably no size change either.

I think you're supposed to just not allow class levels for 12-15, and allow class levels from 16+, but since this child is a genius, I would go with Ur-Priest's suggestion. Roll a low str character and fluff it.

[KillingAScarab]

We are fluffing this PC is a genius/prodigy so he can reach level 1 of a class instead of those NPC classes at the age of 12.My understanding of base classes is that they don't replace NPC classes unless you're retraining. They do, however, replace single racial hit dice.

On the subject of racial hit dice, dragons aren't the only creatures for which they can represent a different age category, they just aren't defined that strictly. Consider the centaur monster class in Races of the Wild. You do not gain large size until the sixth and final level, which I would think models a centaur going through a "growth spurt" at puberty. Adulthood ages also start at 30+ years.

[Tiri]

d20 modern says ages 12-15 use original scores, no adjustments, and arguably no size change either.

I think you're supposed to just not allow class levels for 12-15, and allow class levels from 16+, but since this child is a genius, I would go with Ur-Priest's suggestion. Roll a low str character and fluff it.

Well, everyone has at least a level of Commoner. That's a class level.

[RoboEmperor]

Well, everyone has at least a level of Commoner. That's a class level.

I meant PC class level not NPC class level. I guess I should've been more specific.

[Ashtagon]

My original essay on the topic, still relevant: http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=8366

Your 12-year-old human will most definitely fall inside the Medium size category.

[Inevitability]

Same section also bars players from playing characters below adult age, IIRC.

You can start out as a commoner and retrain into a PC class, though, allowing you to ignore age limits. I believe HPatN20 first showed this trick.