Stats for Kids' Book Characters

[the_brazenburn]

How would you stat out some characters from popular children's books (i.e. Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, etc.).

Is there any really easy way to do so, or not?

Does the young nature of the books make them inherently defiant of the D&D class system?

[The Cats]

Stab in the dark, but I'm thinking Harry Potter might be a wizard.

...

"I'm a wot?"

[Unoriginal]

How would you stat out some characters from popular children's books (i.e. Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, etc.).

Is there any really easy way to do so, or not?

Does the young nature of the books make them inherently defiant of the D&D class system?

The young audience of the books does not make them inherently defiant of the D&D class system.

What makes them inherently defiant is the setting of the books.

A Potter-verse wizard is not well-represented by any of D&D classes, the magic system being completely different. And characters in Percy Jackson are modern teens with superpowers themed after Greek Gods due to being their kids.

So trying to stat said characters would not work.

Now, you could make a NPC or a PC, who is inspired by those characters, but they necessarily will not be the same.

[Easy_Lee]

Children's books tend to be simple and direct. To fit that theme, design characters that are simple but excel in one or two areas. Build simple characters that exemplify a trait you wish to explore.

Example: let's say I wanted to stat a detective from a children's book. Giving him a tragic backstory or making him a crack shot or violent person would not fit. What do investigators do? They investigate. Let's make an Inquisitive Rogue with the Observant feat and Expertise in Investigation and Perception. His Passive Perception is through the roof and he can find anything. That's a children's book detective.

[ImproperJustice]

Honestly you may be better off using a different, more generic system.

Examples include Savage Worlds, GURPS, or Mutants and Masterminds.

Then build them as low level super-beings.

[Ninja_Prawn]

A Potter-verse wizard is not well-represented by any of D&D classes

Aren't potter-verse wizards born with their powers? I.e. they're sorcerers in D&D terms?

Granted the vancian casting system doesn't mesh well with... pretty much any fictional setting. But that's a necessary break to preserve game balance.

[the_brazenburn]

Aren't potter-verse wizards born with their powers? I.e. they're sorcerers in D&D terms?

Granted the vancian casting system doesn't mesh well with... pretty much any fictional setting. But that's a necessary break to preserve game balance.

They are born with the potential to have powers, but cannot achieve them without extreme study: an odd mix of sorcerer and wizard. Although, Voldemort could potentially be a warlock...

[Knaight]

Does the young nature of the books make them inherently defiant of the D&D class system?

No. The D&D class system being a highly specialized edifice that supports only a very specific set of fantasy that effectively doesn't exist in literature at all makes them "inherently defiant of the D&D class system". See also: Every other literary character not from a D&D novel, probably 80% of literary characters from a D&D novel, and even most RPG characters from non-D&D fantasy games.

Dropping the class systems and using NPC stat procedures produces a better model, although it's still pretty terrible.

[nickl_2000]

They are born with the potential to have powers, but cannot achieve them without extreme study: an odd mix of sorcerer and wizard. Although, Voldemort could potentially be a warlock...

Voldemort was a wizard to begin with who basically turned himself into a lich. The dude had what, 7 phylacteries/horcruxes? I would call them all wizards, although Hagrid is more of a beastmaster ranger than a wizard.

[Unoriginal]

Phylacteries and horcruxes aren't the same.

[the_brazenburn]

Phylacteries and horcruxes aren't the same.

They aren't an exact parallel, but I think that they are by far the closest parallel.

[Ninja_Prawn]

a very specific set of fantasy that effectively doesn't exist in literature at all

Well, except for warlocks.

And I'd also argue that it's easy to find clear examples of barbarians, fighters, monks and rogues in literature/film/video games/real life. The incompatibilities mostly stem from d&d's magic system.

[Knaight]

Well, except for warlocks.

And I'd also argue that it's easy to find clear examples of barbarians, fighters, monks and rogues in literature/film/video games/real life. The incompatibilities mostly stem from d&d's magic system.

You can find characters who could be described with a title that's the same as the name of a class just fine. That doesn't mean that the rules system is a good model in any way.

[Ninja_Prawn]

You can find characters who could be described with a title that's the same as the name of a class just fine. That doesn't mean that the rules system is a good model in any way.

What I mean is, you the rules for those classes do work as models for characters that appear in media (children's or otherwise). Fiction is full of people who sold their souls for magical power & a fantastic pet, and the short rest recharge mechanic is a lot more like how magic is presented in non-d&d works. And the rules that govern martial characters - weapon proficiencies, extra attacks, sneak attack, skill expertise, rage, etc., are all pretty much real-life 'things', which means plenty of fictional characters have them, too. Sure there's a bit of abstraction, but it's not crazy to say Disney's Aladdin is a thief rogue, eh?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The question is not "can it be done", but "is it useful to do so?" Given a sufficiently high level of generality, any character can be built in any system. But usually not more than thematically, if you want to preserve playability.

I have a negative attitude toward building "X, but in D&D", at least if you want more than a passing similarity in theme. It produces characters that don't fit the setting, the campaign, and don't have a way to grow based on in game events rather than shoehorning the necessary events into the emerging story. It's disrespectful for the people who actually want to play characters that fit, it's disrespectful of the DM who is trying to weave a narrative that works with the world, and it disrespects the setting and the intrinsic, implicit constraints that hold the setting together. But that's just me.

[GlenSmash!]

Geek and sundry does this every so often.

They've done Harry Potter, Avatar: The Last Air Bender, Sailor Moon, and even PokeMon

https://geekandsundry.com/tag/character-sheets/

[Douche]

Stab in the dark, but I'm thinking Harry Potter might be a wizard.

...

"I'm a wot?"

WRONG! Harry Potter is a sorcerer, since magic is hereditary.

By contrast, Dr. Strange who is Sorcerer Supreme is actually a wizard


They are born with the potential to have powers, but cannot achieve them without extreme study: an odd mix of sorcerer and wizard. Although, Voldemort could potentially be a warlock...

Sorcerers in D&D need to train as well. Having to develop your skills not really a good basis imo. The origins of the magic is what's important