An Attempt to Stat Children

[SirNibbles]

I'm trying to think of a good way to assign reasonable stats for children. Here are my thoughts:

You gain HD as you progress from an infant to an adult. Upon reaching adulthood, you no longer gain HD (except for dragons and similar races), though you may gain HD from class levels.

The example stats are given for a human.

Fetus: 1/2 d8 (Tiny)
Infant (Under 1 Year): 1/2 d8 (Tiny)
Toddler (Under 3 Years): 1d8 (Small)
Child (Under 9 Years): 1d8 (Small)
Tweens (Under 15 Years): 2d8 (Medium)
Adult (15+ Years): 2d8 (Medium)

I would also propose stat penalties for those who are not yet fully developed. Upon conception, stats would be rolled as normal. For this example, I rolled the following:
STR: 12
DEX: 11
CON: 15
INT: 16
WIS: 12
CHA: 13

We then apply a percentage-based penalty across the board, rounding down (to a minimum of 3 for any stat). This penalty starts at 75% at conception and decreases by 5% every year on the child's birthday, ending once the character reaches adulthood at age 15. (Since the age of adulthood varies by race, so too would the rate at which this penalty disappears).



6 Month Old Infant (Tiny)
STR: 3
DEX: 3
CON: 4
INT: 4
WIS: 3
CHA: 3

2 Year Old Toddler (Small)
STR: 4
DEX: 4
CON: 5
INT: 6
WIS: 4
CHA: 5

4 Year Old Child (Small)
STR: 5
DEX: 5
CON: 7
INT: 7
WIS: 5
CHA: 6

9 Year Old Tween (Medium)
STR: 8
DEX: 8
CON: 11
INT: 11
WIS: 8
CHA: 9

15 Year Old Adult (Medium)
STR: 12
DEX: 11
CON: 15
INT: 16
WIS: 12
CHA: 13

[Ashtagon]

Is it your intention to have children happily walking around wearing multiple axes in their faces? Because this is how you get children happily walking around wearing multiple axes in their faces.

[noob]

Why would they wear axes with their face?
Usually adventurers steal back the axes they gave you by hitting you.

[Geddy2112]

Pathfinder has a pretty good way to deal with young characters (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/more-character-options/young-characters/)

[SirNibbles]

Pathfinder has a pretty good way to deal with young characters (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/more-character-options/young-characters/)

I dislike the PF system for several reasons.

It implies that around 20% of 8 year-olds will be stronger than the average adult, assuming all stats are generated using the 4d6h3 system. It also fails to address children below the age of 8. Furthermore, it doesn't solve the issue of children not having HD until they take class levels.

I think a percentage-based system is better at representing the growth of a child over time.

[Remuko]

Children, especially of most PHB humanoid races should never have more than 1HD without class levels. You get your first class level at adulthood. No classless adult should have more than 1d8 hp and no classless child younger than that should have that much. Maybe Teens get 1/2 d8 and younger than that they just get 1hp thats it, just 1.

[Mordaedil]

I dislike the PF system for several reasons.

It implies that around 20% of 8 year-olds will be stronger than the average adult, assuming all stats are generated using the 4d6h3 system. It also fails to address children below the age of 8. Furthermore, it doesn't solve the issue of children not having HD until they take class levels.

I think a percentage-based system is better at representing the growth of a child over time.

Average people aren't generated using 4d6kh6, they are generated using 3d6 in order.

Also, the Pathfinder system is only really meant to be applied to heroic, prodigy children, not average children.

[SirNibbles]

Children, especially of most PHB humanoid races should never have more than 1HD without class levels. You get your first class level at adulthood. No classless adult should have more than 1d8 hp and no classless child younger than that should have that much. Maybe Teens get 1/2 d8 and younger than that they just get 1hp thats it, just 1.

1/2 d8 until adulthood? That's fewer HD than a dog. In fact, don't think I've seen any Small or larger creature with less than 1 HD. 1 HP is just ridiculous. That means getting scratched by a cat would drop you.

[Celestia]

Wait, so a child army is more powerful than an orc horde? I think this has some flaws.

[Ashtagon]

1/2 d8 until adulthood? That's fewer HD than a dog. In fact, don't think I've seen any Small or larger creature with less than 1 HD. 1 HP is just ridiculous. That means getting scratched by a cat would drop you.

Realistically, what do you expect to be the result of putting a Rottweiler (or other large dog bred for combat) in a battle arena with a child?

D&D "dogs" are large dogs bred for combat, not poodles.

[Melcar]

I'm trying to think of a good way to assign reasonable stats for children. Here are my thoughts:

You gain HD as you progress from an infant to an adult. Upon reaching adulthood, you no longer gain HD (except for dragons and similar races), though you may gain HD from class levels.

The example stats are given for a human.

Fetus: 1/2 d8 (Tiny)
Infant (Under 1 Year): 1d8 (Tiny)
Toddler (Under 3 Years): 2d8 (Small)
Child (Under 9 Years): 3d8 (Small)
Uberchild (Under 15 Years): 4d8 (Medium)
Adult (15+ Years): 5d8 (Medium)

I would also propose stat penalties for those who are not yet fully developed. Upon conception, stats would be rolled as normal. For this example, I rolled the following:
STR: 12
DEX: 11
CON: 15
INT: 16
WIS: 12
CHA: 13

We then apply a percentage-based penalty across the board, rounding down (to a minimum of 3 for any stat). This penalty starts at 75% at conception and decreases by 5% every year on the child's birthday, ending once the character reaches adulthood at age 15. (Since the age of adulthood varies by race, so too would the rate at which this penalty disappears).



6 Month Old Infant (Tiny)
1d8 (5 HP*)
STR: 3
DEX: 3
CON: 4
INT: 4
WIS: 3
CHA: 3
*Using the max HP at first level rule and a -3 CON modifier.

2 Year Old Toddler (Small)
2d8 (10 HP*)
STR: 4
DEX: 4
CON: 5
INT: 6
WIS: 4
CHA: 5
*Rolling for HP at this point. Rolled an 8.

4 Year Old Child (Small)
3d8 (13 HP)
STR: 5
DEX: 5
CON: 7
INT: 7
WIS: 5
CHA: 6

9 Year Old Uberchild (Medium)
4d8 (20 HP)
STR: 8
DEX: 8
CON: 11
INT: 11
WIS: 8
CHA: 9

15 Year Old Adult (Medium)
5d8 (33 HP)
STR: 12
DEX: 11
CON: 15
INT: 16
WIS: 12
CHA: 13

A 10 CON adult Commoner 1 would now have an average of 28.5 HP. Some may see this as an issue. Some may see this as an improvement. Perhaps simplifying it to an HD increase at every size increase (1d8 at birth, 2d8 at 1 year, 3d8 at 9 years) would work better.

Why do they have d8 hp? Are they not commoners? And why more than one HD? I mean they have not yet undergone any form of training or education that could make them anything else, except a level 1 commoner. And IIRC a commoner has d4 hp!



Wait, so a child army is more powerful than an orc horde? I think this has some flaws.

Ha ha ha.... This really hits the nail on the head! Flawed indeed!

[SirNibbles]

Realistically, what do you expect to be the result of putting a Rottweiler (or other large dog bred for combat) in a battle arena with a child?

D&D "dogs" are large dogs bred for combat, not poodles.

"The statistics presented here describe a fairly small dog of about 20 to 50 pounds in weight."
- Monster Manual, page 271

Poodles weigh between 45 and 70 pounds. Rottweilers weigh over 100 pounds. They'd be closer to a Riding Dog (medium) which has 2d8 HD.


Wait, so a child army is more powerful than an orc horde? I think this has some flaws.

Obviously the Orcs would have RHD as well.


Why do they have d8 hp? Are they not commoners? And why more than one HD? I mean they have not yet undergone any form of training or education that could make them anything else, except a level 1 commoner. And IIRC a commoner has d4 hp!

Humans are humanoids. Humanoids have 8-sided hit dice. How does a human with no training (newborn) have any class levels?

___

I'll take your suggestions into account and reduce the HD.

[Melcar]

Humans are humanoids. Humanoids have 8-sided hit dice. How does a human with no training (newborn) have any class levels?

It makes no sense that a human baby has a higher hd than adult commoner (or expert, wizard, sorcerer or rogue). But just going by humanoid from MM is not right. There is a huge difference between humanoids so obviously a child is not going to be some of the strongest humanoid. I checked all my 5 MMs and non of them had human non-classed. I suggest you just make them level 1 commoners, with severely reduces stats.

[Mordaedil]

So according to this a wizard becomes less powerful than a baby by reading a book.

Yes, how balanced and through-thought.

[noob]

So according to this a wizard becomes less powerful than a baby by reading a book.

Yes, how balanced and through-thought.

It is obviously because spending 2d6 years in a row reading books without ever walking is not good for your health.
That is why they then gain hd by going out and fighting but in fact they would gain hd also by walking outside but somehow wizards think they must complete objectives and not just walk outside from time to time.

[SirNibbles]

So according to this a wizard becomes less powerful than a baby by reading a book.

Yes, how balanced and through-thought.

You're implying the human loses his RHD upon gaining class levels, contrary to what I said from the start and contrary to how the existing rules for RHD work.

[Mordaedil]

So how many hit dice does an elf start with? Does a human become epic when he reaches level 18?

[Grand Arbiter]

IMHO, this is what you need to know for children/youth of any race:


Movement: Gets away if you let it.
Saving Throws: Miraculously survives all accidents.
Armor Class: You hit.
Hit Points: Congratulations, Baby-Killer.
Special Qualities: I hope you can live with yourself.


You missed one.

Alignment: TBD.
Normally, I'm against listing alignment in stat blocks, but for that I'll make an exception.

Both from a thread regarding baby dragons in the OOTS subforum, but equally relevant here.
Links to (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16153403&postcount=28) single posts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16153483&postcount=31), since they can't be properly quoted.

[JeenLeen]

Although I generally agree that this system has some severe flaws, here's a couple questions to see its merits.

Are you augmented the system so that all adult humans have 2d8 racial hit die on top of their class level hit die? If yes, that solves the issue of children being more resilient than a level 1 <most classes>. Also, if orcs and other races also keep their racial hit die from being an adult, that solves the issue of a child army being stronger than an orc horde.
Additional reason to keep the racial HD if you include this change: You can explain spellcasters losing HP by their poor health choices to get mystic might--BUT that goes against the idea of HP incorporating luck, divine favor, and other non-physical aspects (which is fine, several folk disregard that). However, 2d8 averages 9 HP. That's more than a level 1 cleric gets, and they are a combatant-like class. If rolling for HP, a fighter would average around 5-6 HP and a barbarian around 6-7 at level 1.

However, I think most of the issue would be resolved by having the child be a level 1 commoner with reduced HP, as others have mentioned, instead of using racial hit die. Racial hit die seem reserved primarily for monsters (or 'monsters', in the sense of not normal PC races) that may or may not have classes. The common humanoids use class HD instead of racial HD, and humans default to the (admittingly weaker) Commoner instead of Humanoid.
Using the commoner template (with penalties for the very young) fits the rest of the game better, requires less augmentation of HP across the board, and seems to make more sense.

[ahyangyi]

I would suggest just giving -2 overall for an uberchild and -4 overall & -1 size for a child. Anything younger gets gross.

So taking that wizard example, a 12-years-old uberchild would have
STR: 10
DEX: 9
CON: 13
INT: 14
WIS: 10
CHA: 11
which is about a low-point-buy character would look. Or what you get when you try to roll a character but had bad luck. Not good, but she can probably adventure like a real adult to some extent.

and a 9-years-old child would have
STR: 8
DEX: 7
CON: 11
INT: 12
WIS: 8
CHA: 9
which is weak but still compares favorably to a random commoner.

I think such a simple solution would be good enough.

The dexterity bonus in pathfinder's article looks weird to me, as that implies a child is better at using a bow than an adult, which isn't that case. Instead, the child looks more agile and nimble because she is smaller in size, and we already have rules for that.

Also, please don't touch the HD. The level-1 characters are fragile enough and taking a -4 penalty to CON is surely a penalty significant enough.

[Celestia]

Also, why does a fetus get a stat block? >:|

[SirNibbles]

IMHO, this is what you need to know for children/youth of any race:




Both from a thread regarding baby dragons in the OOTS subforum, but equally relevant here.
Links to (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16153403&postcount=28) single posts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16153483&postcount=31), since they can't be properly quoted.

You can fudge the quotes by manually typing the post number, like this:


Here are the stats you actually need for a hatchling dragon:

Movement: Gets away if you let it.
Saving Throws: Miraculously survives all accidents.
Armor Class: You hit.
Hit Points: Congratulations, Baby-Killer.
Special Qualities: I hope you can live with yourself.

Coincidentally, these are the same exact stats for every other species of baby.

___


Although I generally agree that this system has some severe flaws, here's a couple questions to see its merits.

Are you augmented the system so that all adult humans have 2d8 racial hit die on top of their class level hit die? If yes, that solves the issue of children being more resilient than a level 1 <most classes>. Also, if orcs and other races also keep their racial hit die from being an adult, that solves the issue of a child army being stronger than an orc horde.
Additional reason to keep the racial HD if you include this change: You can explain spellcasters losing HP by their poor health choices to get mystic might--BUT that goes against the idea of HP incorporating luck, divine favor, and other non-physical aspects (which is fine, several folk disregard that). However, 2d8 averages 9 HP. That's more than a level 1 cleric gets, and they are a combatant-like class. If rolling for HP, a fighter would average around 5-6 HP and a barbarian around 6-7 at level 1.

However, I think most of the issue would be resolved by having the child be a level 1 commoner with reduced HP, as others have mentioned, instead of using racial hit die. Racial hit die seem reserved primarily for monsters (or 'monsters', in the sense of not normal PC races) that may or may not have classes. The common humanoids use class HD instead of racial HD, and humans default to the (admittingly weaker) Commoner instead of Humanoid.
Using the commoner template (with penalties for the very young) fits the rest of the game better, requires less augmentation of HP across the board, and seems to make more sense.

1. Yes, you keep RHD on top of class HD.

2. All races keep RHD on top of class HD.

3. Using class levels for completely untrained characters just doesn't sit right with me. Also, if everyone is born with a class level in Commoner, why would any character be exempt? You'd have BBEGs running around with Commoner 1/Wizard 19 fighting PCs with Commoner 1/Cleric 19, etc.

4. Yes, a character with 2 HD would probably have more HP than a character with 1 HD. I'm not saying PCs and others with class levels shouldn't benefit from RHD as well. I think giving everyone RHD would set a reasonable baseline for what a normal, untrained character could survive. A level 1 Commoner (max 4 HP, but average lower if rolling) would be dropped by a single bite from a corgi. Falling from a 10 foot ladder while fixing a window would most likely drop a commoner.
___


Also, why does a fetus get a stat block? >:|

So that it'd be easier to know if it dies due to being hit while it's in the womb. I'm not encouraging falcon punch abortions, but I think having the mechanic there in case it happens is convenient.

___

By the way, this isn't just for humans/humanoids. What about Centaurs, who have 3d8 Monstrous Humanoid HD at adulthood? Should they get all 3 at birth? What makes humanoids special, that unlike, for example, Pixies, they can't just have a single RHD?

[noob]

So now all wizards(and clerics and fighters and barbarians) will start their adventuring carrier at child age(for avoiding to have 2 racial hit dice slowing their progression)
You know when you have only one rhd you can replace it with a class level but you can not do that when you have two rhd.

[SirNibbles]

So now all wizards(and clerics and fighters and barbarians) will start their adventuring carrier at child age(for avoiding to have 2 racial hit dice slowing their progression)
You know when you have only one rhd you can replace it with a class level but you can not do that when you have two rhd.

1. Why should being born slow your class progression?

2. I know.

The idea that simply existing takes away from your EXP is silly, in my opinion.

[Jormengand]

I don't see why a child should be barred from having real class levels. They should just get -1 size category, -2 STR, -2 CON for each age category below adult, -2 INT, -2 WIS for each category below teenager, and -2 DEX, -2 CHA for each category below child, say - so a teenager would be a small creature, but could still technically be a powerful wizard in their own right. A toddler would have to contend with various penalties to all of its ability scores, and the fact that it's a diminutive creature, and that it probably only has one commoner hit die and nothing else.

There's nothing in me that thinks it particularly odd that children should be decent fighters, especially since in a lot of cultures they actually were in medieval times. Let them have their PC class levels already.

[noob]

1. Why should being born slow your class progression?

2. I know.

The idea that simply existing takes away from your EXP is silly, in my opinion.

Not being born but having 2 rhd adds to your ecl so you need to fight monsters of a cr two higher to gain levels at the same pace.
Believe me a fighter with one level and two rhd is not nearly as strong as a cr 3 encounter(unlike a fighter with three levels which is balanced with a CR 3 encounter(50% chance of wining)).
So basically a wizard that starts adventuring as a child will have only wizard levels while a wizard that starts as an adult will have two rhd and so will be two caster levels(and one spell level) behind the child wizard quickly and the maluses to the stats of the child wizard will not be a penalty overcoming two extra levels in wizard(probably the same can be said of a fighter/barbarian/a whole of other classes).
So with your system people should start having classes and/or adventuring as fast as possible for avoiding the point of non return of becoming useless forever which happens when you become adult and have 2rhd.

[SirNibbles]

Not being born but having 2 rhd adds to your ecl so you need to fight monsters of a cr two higher to gain levels at the same pace.
Believe me a fighter with one level and two rhd is not nearly as strong as a cr 3 encounter(unlike a fighter with three levels which is balanced with a CR 3 encounter(50% chance of wining)).
So basically a wizard that starts adventuring as a child will have only wizard levels while a wizard that starts as an adult will have two rhd and so will be two caster levels(and one spell level) behind the child wizard quickly.
So with your system people should start having classes and/or adventuring as fast as possible for avoiding the point of non return of becoming useless forever which happens when you become adult and have 2rhd.

If you gain RHD simply by aging, regardless of your class levels, and those can't be replaced, wouldn't it even out for all races? That child could start taking Wizard levels when he's young, but would still gain RHD as he ages.

[noob]

If you gain RHD simply by aging, regardless of your class levels, and those can't be replaced, wouldn't it even out for all races? That child could start taking Wizard levels when he's young, but would still gain RHD as he ages.

So I guess I just have to gain enough wizard levels before I age to use that spells that makes you younger to stay a child forever(or even younger for having only one half rhd but then I will need to umd horseshoes(do not ask it makes sense for wizards)) and thus never have that awful ecl increase from ageing(I mean it makes every humanoid of the universe weaker against monsters except for some commoners).
Well I guess than now I can not remove from my mind the image of wizards who reach ultimate arcane power by becoming babies(the lower rhd compensate the fact you now have 3 int and the 3 int can be increased through wearing horseshoes and an ring of intelligence and one other intelligence increasing boost).

[Psyren]

The Giant provided baby stats in another thread:



Movement: Gets away if you let it.
Saving Throws: Miraculously survives all accidents.
Armor Class: You hit.
Hit Points: Congratulations, Baby-Killer.
Special Qualities: I hope you can live with yourself.


I'd extend these to pretty much anything below teenager.

[Calthropstu]

Dont you be statting at my daughter perv.

[Telok]

I have an odd system.
Infants and toddlers have two stats: "incompetence" (1d20-10 for any required roll), and "thin red smear" for the result of your average kid/adventurer interaction.
Past toddler and up to about (human) age ten they're first level commoners. Past age ten they replace that with a non-commoner level and gain another npc class level every (human) ten years.

[One Step Two]

The Giant provided baby stats in another thread:

I'd extend these to pretty much anything below teenager.

Same here.

If I run a "level 0" start for some games, where younger characters haven't yet learned their classes. I use the minimum age for adulthood for their race (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#age), and give them the basic benefits of being a single HD for their Type or subtype, such as any humanoid. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType)
Much like and 1HD monster, the moment they take a class level they change their traits accordingly. This may lead to some oddities in losing HP as they move to wizard for example, or changing of skills, but it's simple and adheres to RAW for the most part.

If you really feel like adding stat changes, things like -2 Str and +2 Dex works well as pathfinder recommends.

[Celestia]

I don't see why a child should be barred from having real class levels. They should just get -1 size category, -2 STR, -2 CON for each age category below adult, -2 INT, -2 WIS for each category below teenager, and -2 DEX, -2 CHA for each category below child, say - so a teenager would be a small creature, but could still technically be a powerful wizard in their own right. A toddler would have to contend with various penalties to all of its ability scores, and the fact that it's a diminutive creature, and that it probably only has one commoner hit die and nothing else.

There's nothing in me that thinks it particularly odd that children should be decent fighters, especially since in a lot of cultures they actually were in medieval times. Let them have their PC class levels already.
Since when are toddlers 6 to 12 inches tall?

[DarkSoul]

Do you really want hit points for toddlers in the land of "if it has stats, we can kill it"?

[Thurbane]

If the OP wants to introduce extra RHD for all humanoids, it's fine, but it will have radical repercussions through the game. A lot of other rules will need to be shunted around and modified to to accommodate. There's a reason so few people want to play creatures with RHD.

Also, I'm curious...what exactly is an uberchild? A Google search mainly shows me a brand of child products.

I have a mental image of something like this:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41ZYql7iamL._SY300_.jpg

[Max Caysey]

Do you really want hit points for toddlers in the land of "if it has stats, we can kill it"?

Yes... for necromancers...


I have to say, I suggest making anything without PC classes commoner, expert or aristocrat. That would include children. When that child reaches late teen i.e. starting age for adventures, that one level of an NPC class is retrained to what ever like normal. If you want your players to start at level 3, then possibly that child had reached level 3 commoner during its growing up, helping mom clean the dishes and helping dad cleave wood etc. Again retrain to level 3 fighter.

Its easy, it works, and your get rid of that awful RHD-nonsense...

Stats wise I suggest something like -2, -4, -6 depending on age... toddler having no stats as that's just lame.

[Mordaedil]

If the OP wants to introduce extra RHD for all humanoids, it's fine, but it will have radical repercussions through the game. A lot of other rules will need to be shunted around and modified to to accommodate. There's a reason so few people want to play creatures with RHD.

Also, I'm curious...what exactly is an uberchild? A Google search mainly shows me a brand of child products.

I have a mental image of something like this:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41ZYql7iamL._SY300_.jpg

I reckon uberchild is a bad translation of 'teenager'.

[Frozen_Feet]

Do you really want hit points for toddlers in the land of "if it has stats, we can kill it"?

You speak as if not having stats would somehow save them.

Any game featuring children which isn't children's fantasy better be able to deal with child mortality.

---

Back to the business at hand:

1 RHD humanoids aren't. Any humanoid species with only one 1 RHD automatically swaps that for a class level.

Class levels before Young Adult aren't. Each class has a starting age specified for a reason, those years model the effort required to earn the skills, abilities and starting money for that class. A character plain isn't able to earn experience before they are at least a Young Adult.

So my first suggestion is that advancement below Young Adult is strictly age only and growth only. My second is that if you want to model gradual learning, each year of life past 4 nets 1 skillpoint, up to a maximum of (Int mod + 2 x 4), since that is the lowest possible amount of skills at 1st level, using the class skill list of the character's parents. 1st feat is gained upon becoming a teenager, that is, 13 years. Children below 13 are small.

[SirNibbles]

I reckon uberchild is a bad translation of 'teenager'.

Since it was the 9-14 age category (66% non-teen), calling it 'teenager' seemed odd.


Do you really want hit points for toddlers in the land of "if it has stats, we can kill it"?

Yes.


Since when are toddlers 6 to 12 inches tall?

Since Genetic Control limited humanoid height to four feet.


Yes... for necromancers...


I have to say, I suggest making anything without PC classes commoner, expert or aristocrat. That would include children. When that child reaches late teen i.e. starting age for adventures, that one level of an NPC class is retrained to what ever like normal. If you want your players to start at level 3, then possibly that child had reached level 3 commoner during its growing up, helping mom clean the dishes and helping dad cleave wood etc. Again retrain to level 3 fighter.

Its easy, it works, and your get rid of that awful RHD-nonsense...

Stats wise I suggest something like -2, -4, -6 depending on age... toddler having no stats as that's just lame.

I have two issues with static penalties:
1. You'll end up with some children who have superior stats to an average adult. I don't think there's any world in which a 1 year old would be walking stumbling around with 12 Int.
2. As you change age categories, the child suddenly gains all-around stat improvements (after years of no stat growth at all).

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Also, why does a fetus get a stat block? >:|

Jup, should probably just be treated as part of the mother. The child dies if the mother does (barring story-wise circumstances like the PC's trying to save the child in the 9th month or something). No miscarriages because someone punched mom in the stomach.

On the main topic: wasn't there a way to make 0th level commoners? Either with the full first 4 HP or half that, no bab, saves or other class features (not that a commoner would get those anyway and without the 1st level feat, but with racial traits including for humans that other 1st level feat.

That approach from Pathfinder that was linked also sounds nice if you want to put in a little extra work, especially because of the ability score penalties.

Ones a child starts adventuring just make it level 1 whatever it wants. If in the hands of a player you might talk to them about an ability score penalty that goes away when they reach adulthood or their late teens, which might make them less hesitant to for instance take a high strength score because they feel like a child shouldn't have that. (If you really want to go all out, count the total number of -'s they get and spread those out over a period of several years. Every so many months they lose another -1.)

And if you ever need an actual stat block for any child young enough to go into the small size category, outside of maybe a comedy campaign about a pie throwing war in an indoor playground, with all due respect, I think you're using D&D wrong.

[Max Caysey]

I have two issues with static penalties:
1. You'll end up with some children who have superior stats to an average adult. I don't think there's any world in which a 1 year old would be walking stumbling around with 12 Int.
2. As you change age categories, the child suddenly gains all-around stat improvements (after years of no stat growth at all).

1) Ok, so you just increase it, to lets say -4, -8, -12 in all stats down to a minimum of 3.

2) No they would gain that gradually if for some reason anyone would be playing a child and player years in-game that is. Reducing the penalty something like every 4 years or so, until you get to starting age, where no penalty is had.

[SirNibbles]

1) Ok, so you just increase it, to lets say -4, -8, -12 in all stats down to a minimum of 3.

2) No they would gain that gradually if for some reason anyone would be playing a child and player years in-game that is. Reducing the penalty something like every 4 years or so, until you get to starting age, where no penalty is had.

4 years is a huge gap, and that's the point I was making earlier.

[Mordaedil]

Since it was the 9-14 age category (66% non-teen), calling it 'teenager' seemed odd.
That is called tweens, preadolescence. For age category purpose, you might as well call them teens because you otherwise aren't going to be using it, since you label 15 year olds adults.

Uberchildren means nothing in the English language.

[Ashtagon]

"Tween" as a word was invented by Tolkein, who used it to indicate hobbits aged 20-33.

Anyone who uses it to indicate pre-teenagers is confusing the issue, especially in the context of a game that uses not-hobbits, or hobbits with their serial numbers filed off.

fwiw, google ngrams (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=tween&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ctween%3B%2Cc0) shows the word has a long history, but doesn't distinguish between tween as Tolkien (or urban dictionary) imagines the word, and tween as a poetic shortening of "between".

[Manyasone]

but I think having the mechanic there in case it happens is convenient.

Dude, what the actual f*ck

[Max Caysey]

4 years is a huge gap, and that's the point I was making earlier.

But how many age categories do you need? My 4 year gap is a total of 12 years, so it goes dow to 3-15, that seems pretty good... What specifically are you after, that I apparently dont get? You think there should be a difference in every 2-3 years? Ok so you have a -3, -6, -9 and -12 on your stats... that way its every 3 years now. Fixed... you're welcome!

[Calthropstu]

Ok, I'll be serious for a second. The stats for children are: You win. What? You want to roll? Ok roll. Did you roll a 1? You win. What? You want me to go into detail? You win. Let's move on.

You want your evil character to go on an evil rampage, you've killed the parents the children are at your mercy. You find them, you can pretty much do whatever you want.
I, as a gm, am not going to go into detail about how you kill them. I am not going to look up stats for them to try to put up some pathetic semblance of a fight.
You win, let's move on. Those are children's stats.

[noob]

And now what do you do against a level 21 wizard who true mindswitched in a child?
Is it still auto win?

[Calthropstu]

And now what do you do against a level 21 wizard who true mindswitched in a child?
Is it still auto win?

Then you auto lose.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

And now what do you do against a level 21 wizard who true mindswitched in a child?
Is it still auto win?

From the SRD for mind switch:


You retain your own hit points, saving throws (possibly modified by new ability scores), class abilities, supernatural and spell-like abilities, spells and powers, and skills and feats (although skill checks use your new ability scores, and you may be temporarily unable to use feats whose requirements you do not meet in your new body).

So no, he would for most intents and purposes, including hit dice and mental stats, still be a level 21 wizard.

Also, a ****.

[noob]

From the SRD for mind switch:



So no, he would for most intents and purposes, including hit dice and mental stats, still be a level 21 wizard.

Also, a ****.

I was quite sure the evil wizard doing this would be a villain.

[Mordaedil]

"Tween" as a word was invented by Tolkein, who used it to indicate hobbits aged 20-33.

Anyone who uses it to indicate pre-teenagers is confusing the issue, especially in the context of a game that uses not-hobbits, or hobbits with their serial numbers filed off.

fwiw, google ngrams (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=tween&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ctween%3B%2Cc0) shows the word has a long history, but doesn't distinguish between tween as Tolkien (or urban dictionary) imagines the word, and tween as a poetic shortening of "between".

Language is an evolving thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preadolescence), imagine that.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I was quite sure the evil wizard doing this would be a villain.

And I'm pretty sure I don't need to know the hit point total of a fetus to deal with the situation, especially since when the wizard dies the child currently in the wizards old body loses a full level, killing them no matter what the exact stats were. Congratulations, now both the players and the GM are baby killers.

Unless of course teenagers have 3 hit dice and only lose them when they pick what they want to be when they grow up.

[SirNibbles]

Ok, I'll be serious for a second. The stats for children are: You win. What? You want to roll? Ok roll. Did you roll a 1? You win. What? You want me to go into detail? You win. Let's move on.

You want your evil character to go on an evil rampage, you've killed the parents the children are at your mercy. You find them, you can pretty much do whatever you want.
I, as a gm, am not going to go into detail about how you kill them. I am not going to look up stats for them to try to put up some pathetic semblance of a fight.
You win, let's move on. Those are children's stats.

Why do you assume everything is about combat and killing?

Yes, perhaps an 11 year old will challenge their father's murderer to a duel. (Losing doesn't mean they will be killed).

Maybe you need them to climb through a window and open a door from the other side so you can go fight a vampire.
Maybe they have information you need and you want to finesse it out of them.
Maybe a woman's baby is in a burning building and the DM needs to see how many rounds it can breathe before it dies to know if the PCs rescued it in time.
Maybe they can work as a double agent, giving the Germans false information about sniper positions in exchange for chocolate.


There are plenty of reasons to have stats beyond just being a murderhobo.

[ahyangyi]

I reckon uberchild is a bad translation of 'teenager'.

Won't say it's a teenager when 15 is considered as the human adult age in at least the PF source. But it's close.
I just silently translated that to "over-child", uber=over.

[Frozen_Feet]

I dislike the PF system for several reasons.

It implies that around 20% of 8 year-olds will be stronger than the average adult, assuming all stats are generated using the 4d6h3 system. It also fails to address children below the age of 8. Furthermore, it doesn't solve the issue of children not having HD until they take class levels.

I think a percentage-based system is better at representing the growth of a child over time.


Average people aren't generated using 4d6kh6, they are generated using 3d6 in order.

Also, the Pathfinder system is only really meant to be applied to heroic, prodigy children, not average children.

Mordaedil is right. Your average kid is created by 3d6 rolls. 4d6-drop-lowest is for that fraction of people who are considered "heroic" enough to take PC classes.

For modelling purposes, you ought to assume everyone gets generated via 3d6 rolls, and PCs are simply selected from the subset of people with scores falling in the 4d6-drop-lowest range.

Also, "20% are better than average adult" is not actually all that wondrous for 9 to 15 year olds, if your assumption of "average adult" strength is 10.5. Remember, carrying capacity et all are directly influenced by size, and prepubescents (ages below 13) ought to be one size category smaller than adults. An adolescent athlete (14 to 15 in our case) can very well be stronger than average joe.


"The statistics presented here describe a fairly small dog of about 20 to 50 pounds in weight."
- Monster Manual, page 271

Poodles weigh between 45 and 70 pounds. Rottweilers weigh over 100 pounds. They'd be closer to a Riding Dog (medium) which has 2d8 HD.

*does pounds to kilograms conversions*

*takes a look at dogs*

Dude, "20 to 50 pounds" is big enough to include smaller German shephers and wolves. These creatures have bite strength great enough to break adult human bones. Poodles and corgis may look funnier, but their bite strength is still considerable. They can cause severe injuries to humans.



] Falling from a 10 foot ladder while fixing a window would most likely drop a commoner.


And this is wondrous how? 10 feet is 3 meters. An uncontrolled fall from that height can kill you and accidents involving 10 ft. ladders are so common in real life that they actually banned such ladders in our work safety regulations.

Maybe the HP rules are closer to reality than you give them credit for.

[Ashtagon]

Language is an evolving thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preadolescence), imagine that.

As a language teacher, I am astonishingly well aware of that. Imagine that.

[Max Caysey]

Why do you assume everything is about combat and killing?

Yes, perhaps an 11 year old will challenge their father's murderer to a duel. (Losing doesn't mean they will be killed).

Maybe you need them to climb through a window and open a door from the other side so you can go fight a vampire.
Maybe they have information you need and you want to finesse it out of them.
Maybe a woman's baby is in a burning building and the DM needs to see how many rounds it can breathe before it dies to know if the PCs rescued it in time.
Maybe they can work as a double agent, giving the Germans false information about sniper positions in exchange for chocolate.


There are plenty of reasons to have stats beyond just being a murderhobo.

All the above reasons do not need statting...

1) If you need the child to climb out the window, then make the child do so as a DM. You don't want the quest to fail because of a bad roll from the NPC child.
2) Same thing with the information. Role-play it. No need to give the child a +1 to a skill role for you (the player) then to automatically win it.
3) How is breathing related to dying in a burning building. Surely its how long it can hold its breath before suffocating. Not sure babies know to do that, so you really need to know how fast a building fills with smoke and heat. The baby's Con score is inconsequential. It dies when the room/building flashover.
4) I can see a bit of rolling going on here, depending on age and class. A level 1 rogue child could be all well enough if the back story is that this child was a street child, who has been surviving on its own during the war. But then again. It would not be a RHD, but a class to represent the character. Still with reduced ability scores. I would still not go beyond level 1 i think, and so the skill would be fairly low. But personally I would just set a DC for the soldier to beat with sense motive and be done with it. I would not stat out a child for that. Unless its some recurring character. But then again its going to be a PC or NPC class with reduced ability scores.



And this is wondrous how? 10 feet is 3 meters. An uncontrolled fall from that height can kill you and accidents involving 10 ft. ladders are so common in real life that they actually banned such ladders in our work safety regulations.

Maybe the HP rules are closer to reality than you give them credit for.

A severe concussion can debilitate an adult human for years. That can easily happen from 10 ft fall. There is a Danish female handball player who ended her career after a fall (from her own 5ft-ish height) while trying to make a save (being a goalie) She ended up in the hospital and had to stay in a dark room for a year or so. Now after a year she can watch 15 min of television and have 15 min conversations.

[Jormengand]

Since when are toddlers 6 to 12 inches tall?

There should probably be an extra age category stuck between child and toddler.


Ok, I'll be serious for a second. The stats for children are: You win. What? You want to roll? Ok roll. Did you roll a 1? You win. What? You want me to go into detail? You win. Let's move on.

You want your evil character to go on an evil rampage, you've killed the parents the children are at your mercy. You find them, you can pretty much do whatever you want.
I, as a gm, am not going to go into detail about how you kill them. I am not going to look up stats for them to try to put up some pathetic semblance of a fight.
You win, let's move on. Those are children's stats.

Right, and what if a DM wants to run one of those rare and terrible settings where non-adults are forced not only to be in, but to be good at combat (or something else), like, say, Lord of the Rings (At the battle of Helm's Deep), Warhammer 40,000 (Space marine hopefuls, probably some guardsmen if we're honest, Necromundan Juves), the Hunger Games (entire premise), GONE (entire premise), or real life (do you want me to list every example throughout history? 'Cause we'll be here a long time.)? What then?

Add to that the fact that the kids in GONE are wielding some nasty spell-like abilities (such as telekinesis, searing light, reverse gravity, and souped-up versions of haste and bull's strength which are not adequately represented by the base spell), and two of them (White-text spoiler) are toddlers with divine ranks. Yes, this is weird but makes sense in context, and half of them are regularly trying to kill each other, and you quickly end up with a situation where you need stats for them.

Sure, if you end up against a child with one commoner level, the result is probably "They die horribly". That's because you're a fifth-level [whatever] and they're a first-level commoner, not because you're an adult and they're a child.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Right, and what if a DM wants to run one of those rare and terrible settings where non-adults are forced not only to be in, but to be good at combat (or something else)

Character progression by class levels. Or is that too obvious? Humans generally don't have creature hit dice, but those that are good at something have one of more levels in classes. Marginally trained foot soldiers are first level warriors, even when they're 15 or, and please don't make me play this campaign, 9. Army regulars and veterans with some experience but no exceptional heroic stories are level 2 or 3 warriors, fighters, rangers etc, in most settings, and people who just saved the world are high level PC classes, also even when they're 9. And okay, I'd play that campaign.

Yes, I know D&D officially has starting ages for classes, but honestly, do racial hit dice sound like a better way around that than just ignoring that age limit?

If you're going to have young characters that need to be able to make a difference, at least give them the tools to do so, and do it in such a way that they don't lose most of their hitpoints the moment they turn 15.

[Celestia]

There should probably be an extra age category stuck between child and toddler.
How does that in any way answer the problem of you declaring toddlers to be diminutive?

[Jormengand]

Character progression by class levels. Or is that too obvious

Depends. By "Too obvious" do you mean obvious enough that I already suggested it?


How does that in any way answer the problem of you declaring toddlers to be diminutive?

I mean, other way around, sorry. They should probably be the same age (and therefore size) category as the one above. Or we assume that a toddler is never actually standing up at full height even in combat, or that they break the normal rules for creatures of their size category because reasons. Alternatively you could start the size category decreases for each category below teenager rather than below child, which probalby makes more sense because teenagers are probably more dwarf height than halfling height.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yes, I know D&D officially has starting ages for classes, but honestly, do racial hit dice sound like a better way around that than just ignoring that age limit?

RHD is an awful solution, but ignoring the age limit is worse. Why? Well - that 2d6 years you need to start off as a wizard, to give an example, is meant to model the time you need to learn the basics of your profession and raise the funds for starting your career. It's a measure of difficulty. In essence, the rules are saying that becoming a wizard is hard enough to take a 15 year old human two to twelve years, with the average being seven years. To give a real life comparison, this is comparable to 3 years in high school and 4 years in polytechnic. After you've finished 9 years of elementary schooling.

So if you can class levels at arbitrarily low levels... the implication either is that you can master that profession at the cognitive level of a child, or that the child is a genius. And if the child doesn't have exceptional ability scores, the latter assumption doesn't make a lick of sense. Maybe you can justify that rare INT 18, WIS 18 character mastering elementary, high school and polytechnic curriculums and becoming economically independent at eight... but INT 10 and WIS 10? Nooope.

Or to put it another way: children taking adventuring classes only makes sense if you're trying to model child superheroes. It doesn't make sense if you're trying to model normal children.

[hamishspence]

Some classes might be a bit more plausible than others.

If you're creating a "D&D-style Oliver Twist" theme, a child might be able to take a level of Rogue pretty early.

For an OotS example:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html

those thieves are noticeably shorter than adults.



Or if you're taking inspiration from real-world child soldiers, a level in Scout or Fighter could work.

[noob]

Except pc adventurers commonly are superheroes.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

RHD is an awful solution, but ignoring the age limit is worse. ...

So if you can class levels at arbitrarily low levels... the implication either is that you can master that profession at the cognitive level of a child, or that the child is a genius. ...

Or to put it another way: children taking adventuring classes only makes sense if you're trying to model child superheroes. It doesn't make sense if you're trying to model normal children.

That's what PC classes are in general aren't they, extraordinary people? The question I was reacting to was what to do with child characters who have to be competent past the level of one level in an NPC class. You're free not to have any of those in your campaign, but if you do want to have them, PC classes. I find it no less unbelievable that a child would learn the secret of becoming really angry when fighting than that it would gain multiple hit dice, either through a human creature template or even through multiple levels in an NPC class (say level 3 warrior). In fact, I'd probably find it more believable if such an exceptional child would start learning magic than if they grew the physical attack strength and constitution of an experienced adult warrior. Being outsmarted by a 12 year old I could handle, being outskilled as well, being physically outwarrior'd would be kind of weird. But that may just be me and my real life constitution score talking.

[Jormengand]

RHD is an awful solution, but ignoring the age limit is worse. Why? Well - that 2d6 years you need to start off as a wizard, to give an example, is meant to model the time you need to learn the basics of your profession and raise the funds for starting your career. It's a measure of difficulty. In essence, the rules are saying that becoming a wizard is hard enough to take a 15 year old human two to twelve years, with the average being seven years. To give a real life comparison, this is comparable to 3 years in high school and 4 years in polytechnic. After you've finished 9 years of elementary schooling.

So if you can class levels at arbitrarily low levels... the implication either is that you can master that profession at the cognitive level of a child, or that the child is a genius. And if the child doesn't have exceptional ability scores, the latter assumption doesn't make a lick of sense. Maybe you can justify that rare INT 18, WIS 18 character mastering elementary, high school and polytechnic curriculums and becoming economically independent at eight... but INT 10 and WIS 10? Nooope.

Or to put it another way: children taking adventuring classes only makes sense if you're trying to model child superheroes. It doesn't make sense if you're trying to model normal children.

There was already a problem with barbarian 1/wizard X technically meaning that you're a wizard X starting from younger than if you were just a wizard X. The starting ages make no sense anyway, so there's no real sense trying to enforce them. Very few classes have any good reason why a child couldn't become one at a young age - wizard is the only one where that even begins to make sense in core (I would comfortably represent some children as having barbarian, fighter, monk or rogue levels in real life, and the rest are just "God likes me", "Nature likes me", "One of those, plus a mundane class's justification" or "My ancestor smashed with a dragon". Not even sure what the justification for bard is, but it's mainly just being good at music, like very much so. Which is pretty much the epic backstory of every famous composer in the observable universe, apparently), and there are very few (maybe truenamer and archivist) where it makes sense outside of it.

[Frozen_Feet]

Except pc adventurers commonly are superheroes.

Which is good for the PCs.

Now, what about everybody else?

The thread starter isn't interested in modeling solely super kids. They don't particularly want to model superhuman kids at all, as evidenced by "I don't like it when 20% of 8-year-olds are stronger than the average adult".

So your comment, while true, is completely besides the point.

---

@Jormengand: The lowest starting age for difficult classes is 2 years (for humans). The lowest starting age for multiclass easy+difficult class is 1+N, where N is the time taken to level. The average for such multiclass is 2.5+N.

So f.ex multiclass Barbarian/Wizard becoming a wizard sooner is not much of a flaw with the rules. Especially when you factor in that the no-cheese chance of getting to level 2 is just 4.4. (80% survival chance for average encounter, 14 encounters taken to level). The multiclass character is someone who opted to take immense risks to learn the more difficult class faster on top of their first class training, while the single class character opted to reach that difficult class in safety of their training environment.

And all of the classes have good reasons why somebody couldn't achieve them at arbitrarily low age. A 1st level barbarian isn't just someone who gets angry. A 1st level Barbarian is someone who has been trained to proficiency with multiple martial weapons, light and medium armor and shield, who is economically independent with a fortune in savings, who can feed at least themself by foraging in the wild etc. Just those weapons take significant chunk of time. You know what the chinese in real life use to say about that? "10 days to learn the staff, 100 days to learn the sabre, 1000 days to learn the straight sword". That's the bare minimum for three common weapons.

Similarly, a 1st level Bard isn't "good at music". They are good at music and have significant martial training and have significant magical training and are equally good at 5 different skills in addition to music. Learning instruments in real life is subject to similar guidelines as weapons. 100 hours to learn the basics. 10,000 hours to master. Speaking of famous composers, you've probably heard of Mozart. A genius, they say. Composed music at age of five. The thing is, Mozart could start practicing super early because both of his parents were performing musicians and relatively wealthy. And none of the works he made as a kid are among those he is actually remembered for. Those early compositions were doodlings of a child. They were remarkable in that he could do them at all, not in their quality.

Do you want me to give examples of every core class? I can do that. The only notable exception among them is the sorcerer, who explicitly gets their abilities as a matter of inheritance. But they are also explicitly supernatural, so completely useless for real-life comparison or as a baseline for normal kids.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Which is good for the PCs.

Now, what about everybody else?

They're first level commoners, optionally zeroth level (although there are several possible interpretations of what that even is) and/or with an ability score penalty in everything but dex and cha or something. (There really isn't a lot of room in D&D to make a character less powerful than a standard adult human, and why bother if those are already so weak compared to anything else?) Or if they're really young, their stats are "you beat them", because there aren't a lot of reasons why you'd ever need stats for a five year old, unless maybe they're Mozart and they're entering a composing competition or something. In which case: first level expert or bard.

I feel like we're going in circles a little.

[Jormengand]

A 1st level Barbarian is someone who has been trained to proficiency with multiple martial weapons, light and medium armor and shield, who is economically independent with a fortune in savings, who can feed at least themself by foraging in the wild etc. Just those weapons take significant chunk of time.

I'm sorry, but do you know who else is proficient in multiple martial weapons?

Elves. Just by existing.

You're confusing proficiency (Can use this weapon without a massive penalty) and being actually good with a weapon (has feats which buff the use of the weapon). Racial proficiencies are gained just by being brought up as part of a culture which values them (which is explicitly why half-humans get them and half-elves don't). A weapon proficiency is not "Good enough with that weapon to serve in the Chinese army" by any stretch of the imagination. It's "Good enough to wield the weapon properly". Nonproficiency in a weapon is sorta Arya Stark stick-em-with-the-pointy-end at best. Being able to wield weapons properly wasn't some amazing feat: it's what children in some societies actually did: all it means is, and I quote, "You understand how to use that type of weapon in combat". Not exactly revolutionary stuff.

Similarly, the bard has five skills that aren't perform. Say they're all knowledge. Do you know who also has a 3/4 chance to be able to answer basic questions on four different topics (and never mind that I said that kids should have INT penalties)? Primary school children, that's who! Who has a decent chance of being able to lie to someone who isn't massively good at detecting lies? Kids. Who has access to the ancient and forgotten art of making friends with people who were indifferent to you (but only on, like, 50% of attempts)? Like, freaking toddlers?

And a first-level bard with 4 ranks in perform and a 16 in charisma - that is, a charisma in the top 5% - will only give even a routine performance 9/10 of the time, which means that our child prodigy, with maximum skill ranks, will sometimes fail to give even a decent performance.

[Freezy]

I had a system once that divided your starting stats across levels, these levels did not grant a lot of skillpoints or hit die.
It did grant hit points, up to initial class hitpoints.

Depending on which classes you took, it granted more skills, feats, hitpoints, etc.
Ability scores were distributed, decide an amount you think is fair to start with.

Just make sure that you realize that a CR 1 is a very challenging encounter for such youngsters ;-)

Instead of starting at 8 with a pointbuy 32, you could say you start at 4 (or even lower), and you can buy more as you gain points across your early life levels.
Each year (early level), you gain a bit of stats (going up to 8) and you can buy points.
To streamline these changes, imagine a stat table; start with 8 in each stat, then add a -4 young penalty. As you level up the penalties decrease and you gain some additional points to spend.

Skill points would be the amount your intended 1st level class would provide, split across your early years.
Feats start late, though the DM might rule that some are talents you simply have a knack for and grant them earlier.
Most feats however would cost a few years to master (once every third or second year would be fair).

It would be totally ok to give these kids access to stuff they can't really afford (like potions) if they need to get busy dodging axes.
Ancestral inherited items would need passing down, so you could work in the death of a family member.

all in all, this is great stuff to work with.
Just design a simple enough system to work the way up to level 1, pick a class for 1st level and divide everything you would have gotten across years.

[SirNibbles]

*does pounds to kilograms conversions*

*takes a look at dogs*

Dude, "20 to 50 pounds" is big enough to include smaller German shephers and wolves. These creatures have bite strength great enough to break adult human bones. Poodles and corgis may look funnier, but their bite strength is still considerable. They can cause severe injuries to humans.



And this is wondrous how? 10 feet is 3 meters. An uncontrolled fall from that height can kill you and accidents involving 10 ft. ladders are so common in real life that they actually banned such ladders in our work safety regulations.

Maybe the HP rules are closer to reality than you give them credit for.

German Shepherds, even on the small end, are 65+ lbs, as are the smallest types of wolves. A bigger wolf can be over 150 lbs. Either your conversions are inaccurate or your knowledge of dog sizes is completely wrong.

___

How many times have you seen children fall out of trees and not even have any broken bones? It hurts, but at that height it's rarely fatal unless you land on your head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMQFhoHIVdA

Here's a very high fall from a tree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K74-54YiaP8

And even if you do fall on your head (from 22 feet in this case), you can recover with proper medical treatment. Immediate death is unlikely. In fact, the man was ambulatory after this fall. When he's not even unconscious, death seems like a huge stretch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDoD0WHFgDE

Here's an unfortunate recent news story where a hiker in Utah fell over 100 feet. He's still alive, but in critical condition.

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/hiker-survives-100-foot-fall-utahs-zion-national-47895149

I maintain that a human being would have at least 9 HP at adulthood.

__


There should probably be an extra age category stuck between child and toddler.

By the age of 1, an average boy will be over 16 inches tall.


I mean, other way around, sorry. They should probably be the same age (and therefore size) category as the one above. Or we assume that a toddler is never actually standing up at full height even in combat, or that they break the normal rules for creatures of their size category because reasons. Alternatively you could start the size category decreases for each category below teenager rather than below child, which probalby makes more sense because teenagers are probably more dwarf height than halfling height.

A rat is Tiny. I don't see how a newborn could be anything smaller than that.

__



I'm sorry, but do you know who else is proficient in multiple martial weapons?

Elves. Just by existing.

You're confusing proficiency (Can use this weapon without a massive penalty) and being actually good with a weapon (has feats which buff the use of the weapon). Racial proficiencies are gained just by being brought up as part of a culture which values them (which is explicitly why half-humans get them and half-elves don't). A weapon proficiency is not "Good enough with that weapon to serve in the Chinese army" by any stretch of the imagination. It's "Good enough to wield the weapon properly". Nonproficiency in a weapon is sorta Arya Stark stick-em-with-the-pointy-end at best. Being able to wield weapons properly wasn't some amazing feat: it's what children in some societies actually did: all it means is, and I quote, "You understand how to use that type of weapon in combat". Not exactly revolutionary stuff.

Similarly, the bard has five skills that aren't perform. Say they're all knowledge. Do you know who also has a 3/4 chance to be able to answer basic questions on four different topics (and never mind that I said that kids should have INT penalties)? Primary school children, that's who! Who has a decent chance of being able to lie to someone who isn't massively good at detecting lies? Kids. Who has access to the ancient and forgotten art of making friends with people who were indifferent to you (but only on, like, 50% of attempts)? Like, freaking toddlers?

And a first-level bard with 4 ranks in perform and a 16 in charisma - that is, a charisma in the top 5% - will only give even a routine performance 9/10 of the time, which means that our child prodigy, with maximum skill ranks, will sometimes fail to give even a decent performance.

I agree with most of what you said.

I think those child prodigy types would have class levels in Expert or something of that nature. I think you need to listen to some of the very young ones (5 years old or so). Most of the time they really aren't that good compared to an amateur adult. They just appear more exceptional because of their young age. Of course, there are the types who practice 8 hours a day and are truly exceptional, even compared to adults.

Compare trumpeter Geoffrey Gallante when he appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (at age 5) to how he sounded when he was 11 to how he sounds now. The earlier performance, if you ignore his age making him seem comparatively better, would probably represent a 9. His later performances are probably 20+.

Secondly, why wouldn't someone with a +8 Perform just take 10?

EDIT: Added story about hiker falling 100 feet and surviving.

[Thurbane]

20-50 lb breeds include:


Australian Cattle Dog (Blue Heelers as we call them)
Bull Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier

...if I was the kind of unbalanced individual to wager on one of these vs. a child, I know where my money would be.

I had a Staffordshire Terrier/Red Heeler cross who was in this weight range, and she could have done some serious damage to me if she wasn't so well natured (I'm 6'3" and was around 300 lbs at the time I had her). In a tug of war with her favorite rope toy, she could pull me off balanced unless I was well braced.

So before you mock people for their lack of dog knowledge, be aware that not everything D&D lists as a non-riding dog is a toy poodle or similar.

Dingoes and African Wild Dogs also fall into this weight range, if you want to take wild breeds into the mix.

[SirNibbles]

20-50 lb breeds include:


Australian Cattle Dog (Blue Heelers as we call them)
Bull Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier

...if I was the kind of unbalanced individual to wager on one of these vs. a child, I know where my money would be.

I had a Staffordshire Terrier/Red Heeler cross who was in this weight range, and she could have done some serious damage to me if she wasn't so well natured (I'm 6'3" and was around 300 lbs at the time I had her). In a tug of war with her favorite rope toy, she could pull me off balanced unless I was well braced.

So before you mock people for their lack of dog knowledge, be aware that not everything D&D lists as a non-riding dog is a toy poodle or similar.

Dingoes and African Wild Dogs also fall into this weight range, if you want to take wild breeds into the mix.

I'm not mocking people. People are naming breeds and saying they weigh much less than they actually do. A debate requires each side to present an opinion and the facts that support that opinion. Pointing out that one side made an opinion based on incorrect facts is perfectly valid.

One of the ones you named, the Bull Terrier, weighs 55-65 lbs.

"Generally, males weigh 55 to 65 pounds and females 45 to 55 pounds. They stand about 21 to 22 inches at the shoulder. The Miniature Bull Terrier stands 10 to 14 inches tall at the shoulder, and weighs about 25 to 33 pounds."

Being able to pull you off balance or injure you is not the same as dropping you from full health to dying with a single bite, which is what the statted dog can do to an average Commoner.

[Thurbane]

I'm not mocking people. People are naming breeds and saying they weigh much less than they actually do. A debate requires each side to present an opinion and the facts that support that opinion. Pointing out that one side made an opinion based on incorrect facts is perfectly valid.

One of the ones you named, the Bull Terrier, weighs 55-65 lbs.

"Generally, males weigh 55 to 65 pounds and females 45 to 55 pounds. They stand about 21 to 22 inches at the shoulder. The Miniature Bull Terrier stands 10 to 14 inches tall at the shoulder, and weighs about 25 to 33 pounds."

Being able to pull you off balance or injure you is not the same as dropping you from full health to dying with a single bite, which is what the statted dog can do to an average Commoner.

I'll concede bull terrier - looks like I may have been looking at a wrong line on a chart.

Commoner vs African Wild Dog? Yeah, I know who I'd back in that one.

Also remember that hit points in D&D are fairly abstract. A single knife thrust can, and often does, kill in one hit IRL. In the reality of D&D it does about the damage as a dog (assuming wielder has +1 strength bonus). In D&D a dog can attack once every six seconds; IRL it can maul someone fairly savagely in six seconds once it gets a grip. But I feel this is not a point you're willing to give ground on: you have a fixed mental image in your head of what the D&D stat block of "Dog" represents.

Trying to justify D&D mechanics with real world pseudo-science rarely ends well.

If you and your players are OK with adding (IMHO at least) confusing and unnecessary extra sets of rules, and it makes the game more immersive and enjoyable, then I genuinely wish you all the best.

[Frozen_Feet]

@SirNibbles:

1) 20 to 50 lbs. converts to 9 to 22.5 kg. That covers up to smallest female German shepherds (22 to 32 kg; males are 30 to 45 kg) and smallest grey wolves (20 to 50 kg). It also covers coyotes (11 to 25 kg) and several other wild canines with bite strength comparable to or higher than German shepherd. (Domestic canines have lower bite strength than wild ones of comparable size due to neoteny.)

2) A dog's bite does 1d4+1 damage. These values don't model playfull nibbling, they model a dog crushing your wrist, leg or throat with its jaws, as is typical of canine hunting methods. In real life, there is nothing wondrous about an adult human dying to a single bite to the throat. An adult human can easily die from shock or blood loss caused by single bite to a hand or leg if a fang pierces major artery.

3) Speaking of shock and bloodloss, people in d20 do not die at 0 HP, they become incapacitated (lethal damage) or staggered (non-lethal damage) instead. Death only happens at -10 hitpoints. When in the negatives and dying, you lose 1 HP per round with a chance to stabilize each round. This means even a 1 HP character has a chance to survive a dog bite or a 10' fall.

4) A dog only has 60% to hit an average human and 50% chance to roll 3 or better for damage. Average HP roll for commoner is 2.5. This means a dog succesfully incapacitates or lethally wounds an average commoner during first round of combat 30% of time.

5) when landing on soft ground, first 1d6 of falling damage is automatically converted to non-lethal damage. Ditto for controlled falls. So even a 1 HP character can fall from 10' and suffer no injury. The Jump and Tumble DCs for ignoring first 1d6 falling damage is 15, so even someone with -4 penalty can walk off the fall 5% of time.

6) default rules assume average array for animals (10,10,10,11,11,11) and standard array for commoner humans (13,12,11,10,9,8). Neither are representative of all members of their species. For large populations, you ought to assume variance along the 3d6 bell curve, from which both stat arrays are derived. This means there are dogs significantly weaker than average and humans significantly stronger than average.

7) the actual average HP for human 1st level commoners is above 2.5. For one, penalties to stats can't lower HP below 1, but bonuses can raise it higher than 4. 37.5% of commoners have Con of 12 or above, and 25% of those roll 4 for hitpoints. For two, humans have two free choice feats. Any human commoner could have Endurance and Diehard, allowing them to act at negative hitpoints, or 2 x toughness for +6 HP. An example 1st level human commoner could have 4 (roll) + 1 (13 con, standard array) + 6 (2x toughness) = 11 HP. This gives a miniscule chance to survive even a fall from 200' (20d6 damage) with -9 HP.

Tl;dr: you underestimate default human durability under d20 rules because you are not looking at the rules holistically. Look at the rules explanations above and then tell me if they can't cover all examples of humans surviving falls you posted.

---

@Jormengand:

1) Elves don't get proficiency by existing. Elves aren't considered mature untill over a century in age. That is the reference point for when elves have those traits. The rules do not tell you that immature elves have these traits, they tell you nothing at all about immature elves. Hence this entire discussion.

2) basic proficiency with a weapon is exactly what's good enough for ancient Chinese army. The saying was made against the assumption that you start with a fresh peasant levy/conscript. So 10 days to learn the staff means that's what people who actually fought with staffs considered minimum time for a commoner to learn how use simplest of simplest weapons properly. Sabres and straight swords compare to martial weapons, and having proficiency with them is what sets commoners and f.ex. fighters apart in both class and starting age.

3) Your example of skill DCs is wrong because you ignored Take 10 and Take 20 rules. Someone with +4 modifier doesn't fail DC 10 tasks 30% of the time, in controlled environment they don't fail at all. A human with 4 ranks in survival and modifier of 0+ is skilled enough to always come back with enough food for three when going to woods he knows. Same for Profession, and that human is earning 7 gold pieces for week, 70 times that of untrained labor. Same for craft and you always craft any DC 10 item with value less than 14 gp in a week. With masterwork tools (+2), you can do quick crafting for DC 5 items. That's three skills; any average human could do this. Bard gets four maxed skills more.

+5 modifier means the same for DC 15 checks. It also means hitting DC 25 with a Take 20. So for a knowledge skill, rather than "75% of knowing routine knowledge", that means "Always remember trivia off the top of your head, 75% chance of remembering routine knowledge off the top of your head, knowing all routine and difficult information on the subject when given time to think, and if given time to reference sources, can return answers to questions which are intractable to people without both training and natural aptitude".

Does that sound like an elementary student?

4) the highest modifier a 1st level human bard can potentially have in any skill is 4 (ranks) + 4 (18 stat) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2 (Alertness etc. Skill feat) = +13. Look at what DCs that hits and tell me what kind of dedication and training you think that takes. Even a commoner with +0 stat can pull off +9 modifier in one skill, meaning they never fail routine tasks without significant outside interference.

[Max Caysey]

@SirNibbles:

1) 20 to 50 lbs. converts to 9 to 22.5 kg. That covers up to smallest female German shepherds (22 to 32 kg; males are 30 to 45 kg) and smallest grey wolves (20 to 50 kg). It also covers coyotes (11 to 25 kg) and several other wild canines with bite strength comparable to or higher than German shepherd. (Domestic canines have lower bite strength than wild ones of comparable size due to neoteny.)

2) A dog's bite does 1d4+1 damage. These values don't model playfull nibbling, they model a dog crushing your wrist, leg or throat with its jaws, as is typical of canine hunting methods. In real life, there is nothing wondrous about an adult human dying to a single bite to the throat. An adult human can easily die from shock or blood loss caused by single bite to a hand or leg if a fang pierces major artery.

3) Speaking of shock and bloodloss, people in d20 do not die at 0 HP, they become incapacitated (lethal damage) or staggered (non-lethal damage) instead. Death only happens at -10 hitpoints. When in the negatives and dying, you lose 1 HP per round with a chance to stabilize each round. This means even a 1 HP character has a chance to survive a dog bite or a 10' fall.

4) A dog only has 60% to hit an average human and 50% chance to roll 3 or better for damage. Average HP roll for commoner is 2.5. This means a dog succesfully incapacitates or lethally wounds an average commoner during first round of combat 30% of time.

5) when landing on soft ground, first 1d6 of falling damage is automatically converted to non-lethal damage. Ditto for controlled falls. So even a 1 HP character can fall from 10' and suffer no injury. The Jump and Tumble DCs for ignoring first 1d6 falling damage is 15, so even someone with -4 penalty can walk off the fall 5% of time.

6) default rules assume average array for animals (10,10,10,11,11,11) and standard array for commoner humans (13,12,11,10,9,8). Neither are representative of all members of their species. For large populations, you ought to assume variance along the 3d6 bell curve, from which both stat arrays are derived. This means there are dogs significantly weaker than average and humans significantly stronger than average.

7) the actual average HP for human 1st level commoners is above 2.5. For one, penalties to stats can't lower HP below 1, but bonuses can raise it higher than 4. 37.5% of commoners have Con of 12 or above, and 25% of those roll 4 for hitpoints. For two, humans have two free choice feats. Any human commoner could have Endurance and Diehard, allowing them to act at negative hitpoints, or 2 x toughness for +6 HP. An example 1st level human commoner could have 4 (roll) + 1 (13 con, standard array) + 6 (2x toughness) = 11 HP. This gives a miniscule chance to survive even a fall from 200' (20d6 damage) with -9 HP.

Tl;dr: you underestimate default human durability under d20 rules because you are not looking at the rules holistically. Look at the rules explanations above and then tell me if they can't cover all examples of humans surviving falls you posted.

---

@Jormengand:

1) Elves don't get proficiency by existing. Elves aren't considered mature untill over a century in age. That is the refer The rules do


A couple of things

1) Don't you get full hit points for the first class die at level 1? Or is that something I'm imagining? Or is that only for PCs and not NPCs?

2) PHB says the average human has 10 or 11 in all stats... Are you using the non-elite array there?

[Frozen_Feet]

I'm using d20 SRD because I don't have the books around for easy reference. To address what you said:

1) Max HP at first level is optional rule for PCs. It's not standard for NPC classes.

2) the sections on monsters and improving monsters tell they're using average array for stat blocks. They also recommend standard array for humanoids (etc.) that advance by NPC class.

From none of this follows that either standard or average array is representative of the whole species. They're average stats for average members of a species, given for ease of use and reference for when you don't actually want to randomize NPCs. From actual in-game perspective, you'd expect much greater variance. To model this variance for huge numbers of creatures, you ought to assume 3d6 distribution, since that is what the 3 to 18 ability score range is derived from, and from where both standard and average arrays are derived from.

Assuming no variation is RAIS (rules-as-stupidly-interpreted) due to causing verisimilitude and worldbuilding issues .

In the above post, I noted for each example either which ability score or which array I was using. Is there an example which is not clear?

[Jormengand]

@Jormengand:

1) Elves don't get proficiency by existing. Elves aren't considered mature untill over a century in age. That is the reference point for when elves have those traits. The rules do not tell you that immature elves have these traits, they tell you nothing at all about immature elves. Hence this entire discussion.

2) basic proficiency with a weapon is exactly what's good enough for ancient Chinese army. The saying was made against the assumption that you start with a fresh peasant levy/conscript. So 10 days to learn the staff means that's what people who actually fought with staffs considered minimum time for a commoner to learn how use simplest of simplest weapons properly. Sabres and straight swords compare to martial weapons, and having proficiency with them is what sets commoners and f.ex. fighters apart in both class and starting age.

3) Your example of skill DCs is wrong because you ignored Take 10 and Take 20 rules. Someone with +4 modifier doesn't fail DC 10 tasks 30% of the time, in controlled environment they don't fail at all. A human with 4 ranks in survival and modifier of 0+ is skilled enough to always come back with enough food for three when going to woods he knows. Same for Profession, and that human is earning 7 gold pieces for week, 70 times that of untrained labor. Same for craft and you always craft any DC 10 item with value less than 14 gp in a week. With masterwork tools (+2), you can do quick crafting for DC 5 items. That's three skills; any average human could do this. Bard gets four maxed skills more.

+5 modifier means the same for DC 15 checks. It also means hitting DC 25 with a Take 20. So for a knowledge skill, rather than "75% of knowing routine knowledge", that means "Always remember trivia off the top of your head, 75% chance of remembering routine knowledge off the top of your head, knowing all routine and difficult information on the subject when given time to think, and if given time to reference sources, can return answers to questions which are intractable to people without both training and natural aptitude".

Does that sound like an elementary student?

4) the highest modifier a 1st level human bard can potentially have in any skill is 4 (ranks) + 4 (18 stat) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2 (Alertness etc. Skill feat) = +13. Look at what DCs that hits and tell me what kind of dedication and training you think that takes. Even a commoner with +0 stat can pull off +9 modifier in one skill, meaning they never fail routine tasks without significant outside interference.

Half-humans get proficiency for being brought up by elves rather than by humans. Plus, if we take the median of your 10/100/1000, then there's little way that a 15-year-old Half-Orc Barbarian could have spent the time to learn the 60-or-so simple and martial weapons by the time they're an adult; your figures clearly don't make sense. My skill check DCs don't take into account taking 10 becase I assume that kids will be able to answer "Really easy" questions a fair bit of the time and "Basic" questions some of the time even when distracted, and will be able to - if really good - give decent performances a fair bit of the time even when distracted; I don't give Taking 10 much credit in these kinds of discussions because it makes everything into a binary can/can't and I don't know of any DM who really lets you Take 10 on a knowledge check. Finally, I don't give massive skill optimisation ANY credit in these kinds of discussions because all it tells you is "You can do really odd things with the skill system" - it does indeed seem odd that someone with no experience (because XP do really represent experience) can balance on a 2-inch beam with very few problems while being shot at, and it doesn't become much weirder if said person is a child.

[SirNibbles]

@SirNibbles:

1) 20 to 50 lbs. converts to 9 to 22.5 kg. That covers up to smallest female German shepherds (22 to 32 kg; males are 30 to 45 kg) and smallest grey wolves (20 to 50 kg). It also covers coyotes (11 to 25 kg) and several other wild canines with bite strength comparable to or higher than German shepherd. (Domestic canines have lower bite strength than wild ones of comparable size due to neoteny.)

2) A dog's bite does 1d4+1 damage. These values don't model playfull nibbling, they model a dog crushing your wrist, leg or throat with its jaws, as is typical of canine hunting methods. In real life, there is nothing wondrous about an adult human dying to a single bite to the throat. An adult human can easily die from shock or blood loss caused by single bite to a hand or leg if a fang pierces major artery.

3) Speaking of shock and bloodloss, people in d20 do not die at 0 HP, they become incapacitated (lethal damage) or staggered (non-lethal damage) instead. Death only happens at -10 hitpoints. When in the negatives and dying, you lose 1 HP per round with a chance to stabilize each round. This means even a 1 HP character has a chance to survive a dog bite or a 10' fall.

4) A dog only has 60% to hit an average human and 50% chance to roll 3 or better for damage. Average HP roll for commoner is 2.5. This means a dog succesfully incapacitates or lethally wounds an average commoner during first round of combat 30% of time.

5) when landing on soft ground, first 1d6 of falling damage is automatically converted to non-lethal damage. Ditto for controlled falls. So even a 1 HP character can fall from 10' and suffer no injury. The Jump and Tumble DCs for ignoring first 1d6 falling damage is 15, so even someone with -4 penalty can walk off the fall 5% of time.

6) default rules assume average array for animals (10,10,10,11,11,11) and standard array for commoner humans (13,12,11,10,9,8). Neither are representative of all members of their species. For large populations, you ought to assume variance along the 3d6 bell curve, from which both stat arrays are derived. This means there are dogs significantly weaker than average and humans significantly stronger than average.

7) the actual average HP for human 1st level commoners is above 2.5. For one, penalties to stats can't lower HP below 1, but bonuses can raise it higher than 4. 37.5% of commoners have Con of 12 or above, and 25% of those roll 4 for hitpoints. For two, humans have two free choice feats. Any human commoner could have Endurance and Diehard, allowing them to act at negative hitpoints, or 2 x toughness for +6 HP. An example 1st level human commoner could have 4 (roll) + 1 (13 con, standard array) + 6 (2x toughness) = 11 HP. This gives a miniscule chance to survive even a fall from 200' (20d6 damage) with -9 HP.

Tl;dr: you underestimate default human durability under d20 rules because you are not looking at the rules holistically. Look at the rules explanations above and then tell me if they can't cover all examples of humans surviving falls you posted.




1. You're using rounded conversions to make the breeds fit. A quick search says a German Shepherd will be 49-71 lbs (female)/66-88 lbs (male). If you want to say that breed (where 99% of the population is 50+ lbs) is represented by the 20-50 lb category, fine. We'll agree to be at an impasse.

2. My sister was mauled by 2 dogs. Her injuries were nowhere near life-threatening. They had multiple rounds of combat on her as well, not just a single attack.

3. I know people don't die at 0 HP, but if you get dropped, you're going to die soon after, especially if you're unconscious. At the very least, getting knocked unconscious by a single bite is absurd.

4. Your maths are incorrect. A dog's damage will be 2/3/4/5 (ignoring crits). A human's HP (assuming 10 Con) will be 1/2/3/4. If we grid this out into the 16 distinct combinations, we see that for any hit, the probabilities are as follows:
3/16: Positive HP (1 to 2 HP remaining)
3/16: Disabled (0 HP remaining)
10/16: Unconscious and Dying (-1 to -4 HP remaining)

Its hit chance is 55%. Let's grid that out again:
45%: Miss (no damage)
34.375%: Hit, Unconscious and Dying
10.3125%: Hit, Disabled
10.3125%: Hit, Alive

5. What's your point? I showed two examples of people falling onto hard surfaces, including one from over 30 feet up. Tumble is a trained-only skill, and none of my examples showed people deliberately jumping. People are pretty resilient when it comes to moderate fall damage, and the HP system does not reflect that if you're going to say that most people have around 3 HP.

6. Variation is equal in both directions and generally cancels out. 66.7% of the population are within 1 SD of the mean, so most variation is pretty minor.

7. Feats represent training (or, more rarely, some innate ability). I don't think that kid who fell from the tree had the IRL Diehard feat. I don't think the guy who fell off the cliff had Toughness x2. They're just average people with no specific training to make their bodies tougher.

___

An aside: what are your thoughts on Gestalting the RHD?

[Lazymancer]

Do you really want hit points for toddlers in the land of "if it has stats, we can kill it"?
http://comicsalliance.com/files/2015/02/DND01.jpg

Though, I admit - statting a fetus is something I've never seen before. Not sure even if FATAL went that far.


On topic: I'd say children should not receive penalties to stats, but maximums (that get raised as they age).