DM question: Starting at a younger age than adulthood

[GreyBlack]

Hey all, so DMing question real quick.

So I'm working on getting a campaign ready and one of my players wants to play a character who starts younger than adulthood (an elf that's 75 years old). So while trying to accommodate this, I brought out some old rules from a related d20 system where, if you start at an age younger than adulthood, you would incur certain penalties; because he's an adolescent, he would incur a -1 penalty to all of his stats.

That said, I'm sensing that the player is unhappy with this, as he's now thinking about retooling the character. I have no problem with working with players to make characters that fit their concept, but in exchange for this it might mean working outside of the standard ruleset.

I'll also admit that I do tend a little bit more on the simulation side of the equation than the kitchen sink side; if the rules for aging didn't matter, then why even include them/only go halfway on them? I recognize that this can rub some people the wrong way. I guess I'm wondering if I'm being unreasonable by saying that starting younger than adulthood would incur an aging penalty?

How do you guys deal with characters who start before adulthood? Do you allow players to even do it? If so, how do you make it work?

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd tell the player "please don't try to make this game more complicated than necessary." The game is based and built on "young adults - adults start out into the world and adventure for *reasons*" and fiddling with that is zero value added.

[Arelai]

Do you think 15 year old boys would have a -1 to all stats compared to an adult? I’d argue it’s the other way around.

[Unoriginal]

I wouldn't change anything. 5e doesn't have age granting any bonus or penalties, and from a rational standpoint if a teenager/elderly person is a PC, it means they already or still have the capacities to go on adventures.

There is no need to complicate things with an inherent negative modifier.

Also in the case of the elf in particular: elves are fully grown up when they're 75, biologically speaking. It's only culturally they're not considered adults.

[GreyBlack]

I'd tell the player "please don't try to make this game more complicated than necessary." The game is based and built on "young adults - adults start out into the world and adventure for *reasons*" and fiddling with that is zero value added.

That's fair. I'm personally the kind of player who loves to gimp his character if it makes for an interesting encounter, so if a DM offered me that option for a character, I would be ecstatic so I do want/like to work with them on their concepts. That said, Occam's razor and all.

[GreyBlack]

Do you think 15 year old boys would have a -1 to all stats compared to an adult? I’d argue it’s the other way around.

I would rule that a 15 year old is an adult in the medieval context, and as such incurs no penalty. We're talking closer to 12-13 in human ages, which is different enough.


I wouldn't change anything. 5e doesn't have age granting any bonus or penalties, and from a rational standpoint if a teenager/elderly person is a PC, it means they already or still have the capacities to go on adventures.

There is no need to complicate things with an inherent negative modifier.

Also in the case of the elf in particular: elves are fully grown up when they're 75, biologically speaking. It's only culturally they're not considered adults.

Yes and no? If we're going by ingame lore, elves may have physically matured but are nowhere near mental maturity; they haven't undergone the Tearing of the Veil yet and as such aren't fully matured. So, even biologically speaking, they haven't _fully_ matured; they're just 80% there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wouldn't change anything. 5e doesn't have age granting any bonus or penalties, and from a rational standpoint if a teenager/elderly person is a PC, it means they already or still have the capacities to go on adventures.

There is no need to complicate things with an inherent negative modifier.

Also in the case of the elf in particular: elves are fully grown up when they're 75, biologically speaking. It's only culturally they're not considered adults.

Exactly what I would do. Nothing. If the particular player wants to change their own stats (downward or in allocation), that's up to them (within limits). Other than that, it's pure narrative.

[GreyBlack]

Exactly what I would do. Nothing. If the particular player wants to change their own stats (downward or in allocation), that's up to them (within limits). Other than that, it's pure narrative.

The player in question also stated explicitly that his rationale is to troll. Not sure if that changes anything, but it's there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The player in question also stated explicitly that his rationale is to troll. Not sure if that changes anything, but it's there.

OOC problems need OOC solutions. Don't try to balance trolls with penalties, it only makes things worse. Just flat ban that behavior (and the player in extreme cases).

[Ganymede]

So I'm working on getting a campaign ready and one of my players wants to play a character who starts younger than adulthood (an elf that's 75 years old). So while trying to accommodate this, I brought out some old rules from a related d20 system where, if you start at an age younger than adulthood, you would incur certain penalties;

Why would you even do this? Are you trying to penalize or discourage your players from doing this? If so, just ban adolescent PCs; there's no need for this sort of soft ban.

Is a stiff penalty like this absolutely necessary for the tablegoers to feel like this PC is an adolescent? I doubt it. I would strongly urge you to completely drop this penalty and just let your player play his PC like normal.

[Unoriginal]

The player in question also stated explicitly that his rationale is to troll. Not sure if that changes anything, but it's there.

Then I would say "no troll at my table, so stop that or stop coming".

[Boci]

I think when my player wanted that I gave them disadvantage on athletics checks to grab and for extended running, though that was for a 13 year old, not a 16 year old. It helped that the character wasn't a strength based fighter, so I think I also ruled they were small for the purpose of wielding weapons, but that never came up.

[Armored Walrus]

The player in question also stated explicitly that his rationale is to troll. Not sure if that changes anything, but it's there.

In your OP, you're asking a question only you can answer: Is it more important to you to have the age matter mechanically than it is to be permissive to the player's character concept? That's two spectra of priorities and only you and the player can determine where the answer is.

In this follow up post, I feel like I can give a firmer answer. My response to "I want to troll" would invariably be, "Yeah, don't." No reason to try to give a mechanical penalty to this concept, just don't allow trolling at your table unless that's the kind of table you want to be running...

[KorvinStarmast]

That's fair. I'm personally the kind of player who loves to gimp his character if it makes for an interesting encounter, so if a DM offered me that option for a character, I would be ecstatic so I do want/like to work with them on their concepts. That said, Occam's razor and all. That can be fun too. :smallsmile:

[GreyBlack]

To the people commenting on the troll thing: the ruling on adolescent characters for me didn't come from there. Rather, it comes from a simulation place. I had said the -1 to all stats before the "I wanna troll" came out, so that never factored into my decision making.

That said, it's not even a mechanical imbalance decision. To me, this has more to do with stimulating how a character would operate. An adolescent lacks the same decision making and physical capabilities of an adult, as such it would make sense that an adolescent has lower average stats. If that's appealing, and if it makes sense for the character's story, then I'm fine with someone taking this. Same applies for making a middle aged character; you could make a character who is older than adulthood as long as you take the correct penalties.

[Unoriginal]

That said, it's not even a mechanical imbalance decision. To me, this has more to do with stimulating how a character would operate. An adolescent lacks the same decision making and physical capabilities of an adult, as such it would make sense that an adolescent has lower average stats. If that's appealing, and if it makes sense for the character's story, then I'm fine with someone taking this. Same applies for making a middle aged character; you could make a character who is older than adulthood as long as you take the correct penalties.

*Average*, *normal*, *real-life* adolescent or middle-aged people might have troubles in those areas. But in 5e, if you are a PC, it means you are in good conditions enough to be an adventurer with no additional penalties regarding your age.

But in any case, if you're defending your houserule like that, it's pretty clear you like it, you want it implemented, and you don't want or need our input about it.

Do what you want, GreyBlack. You're the DM, you're the only one here who know what make you happy when you play D&D. It's not worth it to play something that you don't enjoy, and houserules are here to add what you do/remove what you don't enjoy.

[Boci]

*Average*, *normal*, *real-life* adolescent or middle-aged people might have troubles in those areas. But in 5e, if you are a PC, it means you are in good conditions enough to be an adventurer with no additional penalties regarding your age.

Yes, PCs are exceptional humanoids. But they're still humanoids right? They were still weaker as children then they were as adults, and barring magic or something, they will presumably start to weaken physically as they enter old age.

PCs are exceptional indeviduals. A PC adult is an exceptional adult, a PC adolescent, even with penalties, is still an exceptional adolescent.

[Segev]

First off, discourage trolling. If you're in doubt as to what he means by it, ask him. But you don't want what the internet commonly refers to as trolling at your table.

If he means it as "joking" or "because it's funny," that's up to you whether that's the kind of tone you want to encourage.

But playing a kid with "adult" stats (i.e. not changed from normal) shouldn't be a mechanical problem. It's a social flag, not a mechanical one. People react differently to children than to adults, often not to the child's benefit. They have to fight much more for respect, and they're viewed as weak and vulnerable, whether by well-meaning "protect the kid; don't let him put himself in danger" types or by villainous "go for the weak link" types. This can be used to advantage, but it can also be a huge disadvantage.

And, if all he really wants is to play "the kid prodigy" that nobody really reacts to more than cosmetically, that is also fine, assuming your game's tone supports that. (This archetype is a kid who, despite his age, is known to be as competent as any adult and nobody does more than react with "wow, you're smart/strong/whatever for your age" before moving on.)

In all, though, I wouldn't mess with mechanics.

[Sigreid]

The player in question also stated explicitly that his rationale is to troll. Not sure if that changes anything, but it's there.

Does he want to troll the npc's or other players? If it's the npc's, you don't need to make any adaptions. If they want to troll the other players, tell him to get back under his bridge until he changes his mind.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, PCs are exceptional humanoids. But they're still humanoids right? They were still weaker as children then they were as adults, and barring magic or something, they will presumably start to weaken physically as they enter old age.

PCs are exceptional indeviduals. A PC adult is an exceptional adult, a PC adolescent, even with penalties, is still an exceptional adolescent.

Your assumptions are not shared by 5e.

The rules let you portray characters such as the young hero who can kill fully grown men with ease at 14 or the 80yo elder, and neither would have penalties.

In the setting, those things would certainly be considered unusual, but consideringl that two fully human people can have kids with horns and cloven hooves, that your neighbor the elf knows how to move things with his mind or that he was the childhood friend of your grandfather despite not being adult yet, it's not that odd to have said grandfather be just as in shape as when in his prime or to see a 14yo weaponmaster.

[Ganymede]

Yes, PCs are exceptional humanoids. But they're still humanoids right? They were still weaker as children then they were as adults, and barring magic or something, they will presumably start to weaken physically as they enter old age.

PCs are exceptional indeviduals. A PC adult is an exceptional adult, a PC adolescent, even with penalties, is still an exceptional adolescent.

The starting array is absolutely not a biological simulation of the average physical/mental health of an adventurer, with increases and decreases due to aging. It is a conceit designed to produce roughly balanced characters to help ensure no one character steals the spotlight all the time.

When you give a penalty to young/old PCs, you aren't actually reflecting their youth/age. You're just denying that PC his fair share of spotlight time by making him weaker than his peers.

[Boci]

When you give a penalty to young/old PCs, you aren't actually reflecting their youth/age. You're just denying that PC his fair share of spotlight time by making him weaker than his peers.

Actually what I mentioned previously in this thread was disadvantage on athletic checks to make and resists grapples and for extended running for a 13 year old PC (and an inability to play a strength based warrior). Draconic I know.

I agree -1 to all stats is too harsh, but if you want to make your PC different, there will often be some representation of that.

[willdaBEAST]

Yes, PCs are exceptional humanoids. But they're still humanoids right? They were still weaker as children then they were as adults, and barring magic or something, they will presumably start to weaken physically as they enter old age.

PCs are exceptional indeviduals. A PC adult is an exceptional adult, a PC adolescent, even with penalties, is still an exceptional adolescent.

I'm not sure about the sexual dimorphism of the various races in DnD, but in the case of real world humans, men tend to be taller and have significantly more muscle than women. Personally, I'm really glad that DnD got rid of stat penalties for gender, I don't see any reason for that to be codified into the mechanics.

With adolescents, a -1 across all stats seems a bit harsh if you're playing the equivalent of a 15 year old. Traits like Con, Str, Wis I can see taking a hit, but you could argue Int, Dex and Cha would largely be unchanged. I'd also fall into the camp of this is a prodigy or exceptional adolescent who has trained to compensate for the physical limitations of their peers.

Assuming the -1 across the board and ignoring the desire to troll, as a DM giving such a harsh penalty, I would try to include some kind of benefit. Whether it's something along the lines of what Segev mentioned, strangers are likely to protect you (kind of like a variation of rustic hospitality), advantage on stealth in environments where other children are welcome and present, ability to gather information from local children, etc.

Similarly you can ignore the stat penalties and counterbalance some of the above perks with things like: disadvantage on persuasion towards people significantly older than you, disadvantage on sleight of hand in areas where urchins and pickpockets are present ("I have my eye on you punk"), or some kind of interesting flaw like the inability to take criticism ("you're ruining my life!").

[Boci]

I'm not sure about the sexual dimorphism of the various races in DnD, but in the case of real world humans, men tend to be taller and have significantly more muscle than women. Personally, I'm really glad that DnD got rid of stat penalties for gender, I don't see any reason for that to be codified into the mechanics.

With adolescents, a -1 across all stats seems a bit harsh if you're playing the equivalent of a 15 year old. Traits like Con, Str, Wis I can see taking a hit, but you could argue Int, Dex and Cha would largely be unchanged. I'd also fall into the camp of this is a prodigy or exceptional adolescent who has trained to compensate for the physical limitations of their peers.

Assuming the -1 across the board and ignoring the desire to troll, as a DM giving such a harsh penalty, I would try to include some kind of benefit. Whether it's something along the lines of what Segev mentioned, strangers are likely to protect you (kind of like a variation of rustic hospitality), advantage on stealth in environments where other children are welcome and present, ability to gather information from local children, etc.

Similarly you can ignore the stat penalties and counterbalance some of the above perks with things like: disadvantage on persuasion towards people significantly older than you, disadvantage on sleight of hand in areas where urchins and pickpockets are present ("I have my eye on you punk"), or some kind of interesting flaw like the inability to take criticism ("you're ruining my life!").

I assume you missed my next post where I reminded another poster I wouldn't handle adolescens with a -1 to all stats?

[Ganymede]

I agree -1 to all stats is too harsh, but if you want to make your PC different, there will often be some representation of that.

I assume that'd be reflected in this PC's traits/ideal/bond/flaw, and in how NPCs react to this PC. That sounds better than explaining to your players how halflings are naturally better at muscling their way out of a grapple than a teenager.

[Boci]

I assume that'd be reflected in this PC's traits/ideal/bond/flaw, and in how NPCs react to this PC. That sounds better than explaining to your players how halflings are naturally better at muscling their way out of a grapple than a teenager.

I can fluff that easily enough, halfling are fully grown and developed, especially since mechanically haflings are already just as good at escaping a grab as a human, which your post above seems to imply you would have a problem with. I'm way more bothered by a character aging 5 years from 13 to 18, increasing in height and mass, and having no mechanical changes to show for it.

[GreyBlack]

Just to note: Everyone seems to be under the impression that I'm imposing this on the equivalent of a 15 year old; we're talking closer to 12-13. School grade 7-8 in the US, someone who has not finished their growth spurt.

I suppose I could just give "Disadvantage on most charisma based checks, disadvantage on most physical rolls, can only carry 3/4 of max carry", but that feels clunky and inelegant.

However, I do want to correct an assumption I had made based on previous editions; where previous editions granted penalties and bonuses based on age (-1 to physical/+1 to mental for example), I didn't realize that this aging graph didn't exist in 5e. That's fair, so maybe instead of the flat -1, implementing those disadvantages might be better?

[Armored Walrus]

That said, it's not even a mechanical imbalance decision. To me, this has more to do with stimulating how a character would operate. An adolescent lacks the same decision making and physical capabilities of an adult, as such it would make sense that an adolescent has lower average stats. If that's appealing, and if it makes sense for the character's story, then I'm fine with someone taking this. Same applies for making a middle aged character; you could make a character who is older than adulthood as long as you take the correct penalties.

Well then you're back where you started, and the only answer is the one you come up with for your table. You have to balance how important it is to you to have this mechanical distinction versus how important it is to have that player, and the player has to balance how important it is to play a young elf with the penalties versus how important it is to him to remain a player at your table. Where all those priorities converge, that's where your answer is. Not sure what you want from this forum, as that's an answer only you and your player can arrive at.

[Boci]

Just to note: Everyone seems to be under the impression that I'm imposing this on the equivalent of a 15 year old; we're talking closer to 12-13. School grade 7-8 in the US, someone who has not finished their growth spurt.

I suppose I could just give "Disadvantage on most charisma based checks, disadvantage on most physical rolls, can only carry 3/4 of max carry", but that feels clunky and inelegant.

However, I do want to correct an assumption I had made based on previous editions; where previous editions granted penalties and bonuses based on age (-1 to physical/+1 to mental for example), I didn't realize that this aging graph didn't exist in 5e. That's fair, so maybe instead of the flat -1, implementing those disadvantages might be better?

Its group dependent, but the problem is, most people on this thread (with your notable exception) find the penalties too harsh, at which point they will simply abandon the concept. I will make a 13 year old character if thats how the concept comes, I will accept a penalty in light of their age, but if you tell me its -1 to all stats, I will make a new, adult character, and you may as well have said no. Depending on what you mean by "most physical rolls", that might be too harsh as well. Dexterity based attack rolls? Physical saves?

Ultimatly though, if you like this aproach, and the player likes this aproach, then the opinion of strangers on the internet is irrelevant. What has the player said about your propsed way of handling it?

[willdaBEAST]

I assume you missed my next post where I reminded another poster I wouldn't handle adolescens with a -1 to all stats?

You posted that while I was writing my post. But my post still stands. I was showing another angle on the concept of stat reductions within DnD, not making any judgement on however you'd personally rule an adolescents stat block.

[Boci]

You posted that while I was writing my post. But my post still stands. I was showing another angle on the concept of stat reductions within DnD, not making any judgement on however you'd personally rule an adolescents stat block.

You were quoting me and addressing a method I don't use or think is a good idea. Quoting someone implies you are address them chiefly, unless you specify otherwise.

[UrielAwakened]

I don't see any reason why a character couldn't start out as a young adult and still use the standard point array.

What imagined problem does this change fix? Especially when said character is still as old as a human senior citizen.


That said, it's not even a mechanical imbalance decision. To me, this has more to do with stimulating how a character would operate.

Oh it's one of these.

In a game where magic exists and characters can repeatedly be knocked unconscious and then get up like nothing happened, you care about simulation.

Yeah I have no time for that. D&D has never done simulationist gameplay well and people just turn a blind eye to it until it's something novel or original.

[Boci]

I don't see any reason why a character couldn't start out as a young adult and still use the standard point array.

What imagined problem does this change fix? Especially when said character is still as old as a human senior citizen.

Elves maturing at a rate that would almost certainly result in them dying out as a race is a whole other can of worms.

[GreyBlack]

I don't see any reason why a character couldn't start out as a young adult and still use the standard point array.

What imagined problem does this change fix? Especially when said character is still as old as a human senior citizen.



Oh it's one of these.

In a game where magic exists and characters can repeatedly be knocked unconscious and then get up like nothing happened, you care about simulation.

Yeah I have no time for that. D&D has never done simulationist gameplay well and people just turn a blind eye to it until it's something novel or original.

Now, let's be fair. In (older editions of) D&D, magic and elves and such are supposed to be rare, last vestiges of dying civilizations. Like, if there's 2 wizards in the group, people in the village have likely only ever seen 2 wizards. Without getting all "Old man yells at cloud" here, I do tend to operate on that assumption. Magic is exceedingly rare and poorly understood, the older races are dying and the adventures are effectively looting the old tombs and cities of these dead and dying races. Elf commoners don't exist, Dragonborn effectively don't, etc.

It's not an assumption most people operate on, though, so I can fully understand how that rubs people the wrong way.

[Boci]

Oh it's one of these.

In a game where magic exists and characters can repeatedly be knocked unconscious and then get up like nothing happened, you care about simulation.

Yeah I have no time for that. D&D has never done simulationist gameplay well and people just turn a blind eye to it until it's something novel or original.

This is the all or nothing fallacy. Any edition of D&D has its major problems with simulationist, 5th ed is no different, but it still makes an effort. Why does the heavy property exist for weapons? Where halfling going to be busted if they could wield a longbow and greatsword? No, its because realisticly those weapons are too large for them to wield.

[Segev]

This is the all or nothing fallacy. Any edition of D&D has its major problems with simulationist, 5th ed is no different, but it still makes an effort. Why does the heavy property exist for weapons? Where halfling going to be busted if they could wield a longbow and greatsword? No, its because realisticly those weapons are too large for them to wield.

And yet, the rules don't spell out that you cannot play younger or older, merely give a usual starting age.

And the game still won't be broken and few people will notice enough to have their simulationism disturbed by one or two kid characters who happen to be adult-level competent. Far more SOD-breaking would be the kids' likely un-kid-like behaviors from being played by adults who forget how kids act.

[Boci]

And yet, the rules don't spell out that you cannot play younger or older, merely give a usual starting age.

Yes, almost like its a complex issue that would be hard to rule on definitivly in a book and is best left up to indevidual DMs and groups to decide on a case by case basis.

I don't understand how your comment relates to my point that there are rules in D&D that clearly exist to aid simulationist rather than for any mechanical balance reasons.

[Segev]

Yes, almost like its a complex issue that would be hard to rule on definitivly in a book and is best left up to indevidual DMs and groups to decide on a case by case basis.

I don't understand how your comment relates to my point that there are rules in D&D that clearly exist to aid simulationist rather than for any mechanical balance reasons.

Your comment directly attacks the notion that leaving it alone because it doesn't hurt balance is a good idea, based on the logic that some rules in 5e already exist only for verisimilitude purposes and not for any balance reasons. By implication, it leaves us to infer that we should therefore make children (and old people) have mechanically different stats than the standard.

As I disagree with both the implied conclusion and the required associated logical leaps, I presented reasons why your post did not support the implied conclusion.

If you did not mean it to imply that, feel free to agree that said conclusion is not a correct one, and we can take your post on its face rather than reading anything into it.

[JoeJ]

Have you considered having a discussion about this character with your group? Let the other players tell you what they find fair/unfair or believable/unbelievable about this one player's character, and work out something that everybody is happy with.

[Boci]

Your comment directly attacks the notion that leaving it alone because it doesn't hurt balance is a good idea

No it doesn't. It attacks the notion that "In a game where magic exists and characters can repeatedly be knocked unconscious and then get up like nothing happened, you care about simulation." is somehow wrong.

If you think young characters can be played without mechanical penalty, good for you. But don't tell other people they are wrong for thinking otherwise.

[Segev]

If you think young characters can be played without mechanical penalty, good for you. But don't tell other people they are wrong for thinking otherwise.

If I am not to interpret this as, "Do not argue for your position, because others have a right not to agree," please tell me how I am meant to. Because that's what I'm getting here. It sounds like a plea/injunction not to make arguments in favor of not adjusting PCs' mechanics to account for their age.

[awa]

the age thing only matters if the game lasts long enough for the elf to grow up.

So lets say you believe -1 to all stats is about right for young elves. You could just say this is an elf prodigy with +1 in all stats who will be really something special a few decades after the game ends when hes full size. Its the least amount of work and lets him play his character.

[Boci]

If I am not to interpret this as, "Do not argue for your position, because others have a right not to agree," please tell me how I am meant to. Because that's what I'm getting here. It sounds like a plea/injunction not to make arguments in favor of not adjusting PCs' mechanics to account for their age.

I...you explain why you believe it, without implying people are wrong for disagreeing with you. I feel have explained why I feel a mechanical representation of a young PC is important without saying you are wrong to do otherwise.

You can have an opinion and argue why you think that opinion is better than X, whilst still not saying that people who hold position a position contrary to your must be wrong, which UrielAwakened was clearly doing in the section of their post I quoted and responded to.

In any case, you can say "I think any benefit from adding simulation to this particular aspect of the game is not worth the drawbacks to system and player" is fine. Saying "You are wrong to care about simulation in the game" is generaly not, and dobule so in a game that has rules that exist solely for simulation.

Edit: I'm really struggling to explain this, as simple notions often are. You can think Avengers peaked at Age of Ultron. You can ask someone who thinks Infinity Wars was better why they think so. You can explain to them why despite you still hold that Age of Ultron was the superior film. You cannot tell them they are wrong for still thinking Infinity War 2 is better.

[Rusvul]

I played an eleven-year-old Warlock a while ago. I took points out of Strength and Wisdom--young, weak, and impulsive--and put them into Dexterity and Charisma. (Cute kid, and she was a warlock so she needed Cha.) Mechanically representing a child or adolescent means that the end result should be a character whose stats are childlike. It doesn't mean you have to apply penalties to make the character's stats childlike, though, you can do that just fine with point buy and a gentleman's agreement along the lines of "give your adolescent Elf middling strength and low wisdom."

That said, if you do want an across-the-board way to mechanically represent young characters, I'm in favor of the Savage Worlds approach. Give the character a penalty and a bonus. In my opinion, -1 across the board is both excessively punishing and not very realistic (once a child is old and competent enough to be an adventurer, they've grown past the stage where adults are inherently better than them at everything), but something like -1 Strength and -2 Wisdom might be good. To balance this out, I'd play into the "youthful luck" trope and give the character the Lucky feat. That way, you get a character who's a little less competent, but still worth playing (mechanically speaking). You're rewarding(ish) your players for a unique character concept, rather than punishing them. (Of course, OP, your love of gimping your character for fluff reasons is totally legit. It's just not universal.)

[Greywander]

I've only skimmed this thread, but I would echo what many others are saying: do nothing.

It's kind of the same thing as saying, "My player wants to play a girl. Should I penalize her Strength?" Sexual dimorphism is a thing, and it does change the capabilities between men and women, both physically and mentally. Does this need to be modeled in the game? Not really. The DM can choose to create female NPCs with e.g. lower Strength scores on average than male NPCs, but the players should have the freedom to create their characters however they want to. If they want to create a buff warrior woman, then let them; they're just one of the very few exceptionally strong women out there.

It's the same thing with creating characters that are younger or older. The DM can adjust the stats of NPCs to reflect their age, but there's no reason to penalize players for creating younger or older characters. They can voluntarily set their stats to reflect their age, for example an older PC might have a higher Wisdom and Intelligence but a lower Strength and Dexterity, but they choose to do this. Otherwise, maybe they're just aging really well and are still in great shape despite their age. The same would apply to younger character.

In fact, I created a homebrew PC race that is physically (and mentally, to a degree) comparable to a human child their whole life. How did I handle that? I made their size small. That's it. As another example, I've also been working an on undead race and the option exists to play an undead child, and again the only difference between a child an adult, gameplay-wise, is that they are small size.

In your case, since the player is an elf, and 75 isn't that young, there's no need to even make them small size.

Fluff/flavor/RP-wise, it will be different, but it is unnecessary to impose any kind of mechanical change for this.

I'm not saying that bonuses and penalties for things like race, age, sex, etc. shouldn't exist, as they're very useful when you need to randomly generate a lot of characters and want a semblance of realism, but when it comes to PCs it's generally better to give control to the players over how they want to build their character. The PC they create might not be "realistic", but if anyone deserves to be the exception, it would be the protagonists i.e. the PCs.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If you want to make it mechanically interesting you might give a relatively minor penalty like say -1 to both strength and wisdom as long as he's underage, but because he starts adventuring early he learns more than the adults, resulting in some minor boon. If this was 3.5 I'd argue for an extra skillpoint gained per level up while still underage, in 5e maybe you could consider slightly faster XP gain (that might offset the base stat penalty faster than you think), a permanent extra proficiency, BaB+1 starting when he reaches adulthood, any sort of reward for surviving as a child adventurer, what doesn't kill me makes me stronger so to speak, like Tarzan. (This method of training great adventurers may be a bad idea in real life.)

I wouldn't make either the penalty or the boon too big, because someone is bound to think it's unfair.

Ans as others said, it's not really relevant if he doesn't reach adulthood during the campaign.

[Boci]

It's kind of the same thing as saying, "My player wants to play a girl. Should I penalize her Strength?" Sexual dimorphism is a thing, and it does change the capabilities between men and women, both physically and mentally.

Not as much though. Women serve in the military, and Israel even allows them to join the special forces. We don't allow this for 13 year olds to do so. Now part of that is to protect 13 years old, but let's not pretend the difference between a 13 year old and an adult and man and a woman aren't vastly different.

Not saying based on this you have to make mechanical penalties for younger character, but it shouldn't be hard to imagine why someone would not want sexual dimorphism in core races yet still wants a mechanical representation of a younger age.

[Greywander]

Not as much though. Women serve in the military, and Israel even allows them to join the special forces. We don't allow this for 13 year olds to do so. Now part of that is to protect 13 years old, but let's not pretend the difference between a 13 year old and an adult and man and a woman aren't vastly different.
Women have served in battle a number of times throughout history, but it has still been exceedingly rare compared to men. They're not incapable, that much has been demonstrated, but men are clearly much better suited to combat and warfare. The proof of this is every time we've let a womens sports team play against a mens sports team. See also how transwomen are wrecking ciswomen in sports.

Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.
This is a huge difference. Huge enough that it would justify a Strength penalty for female characters if we wanted to make things realistic. Now, those who have specifically trained can narrow the gap, but they will never eliminate it. Warfare and adventuring are both very physically taxing, so sex does make a difference.

All that said, this is fantasy, and I stand by letting players choose how they want to distribute stats instead of penalizing them for sex or age. D&D isn't supposed to be realistic, if it was then elves would be OP as heck just due to their longer lifespans allowing them to train more. They can have all the experience of an entire human lifespan and still be a young adult. While I do like realism, D&D isn't built for it.

[Boci]

Women have served in battle a number of times throughout history, but it has still been exceedingly rare compared to men. They're not incapable, that much has been demonstrated, but men are clearly much better suited to combat and warfare. The proof of this is every time we've let a womens sports team play against a mens sports team. See also how transwomen are wrecking ciswomen in sports.

This is a huge difference. Huge enough that it would justify a Strength penalty for female characters if we wanted to make things realistic. Now, those who have specifically trained can narrow the gap, but they will never eliminate it. Warfare and adventuring are both very physically taxing, so sex does make a difference.

All that said, this is fantasy, and I stand by letting players choose how they want to distribute stats instead of penalizing them for sex or age. D&D isn't supposed to be realistic, if it was then elves would be OP as heck just due to their longer lifespans allowing them to train more. They can have all the experience of an entire human lifespan and still be a young adult. While I do like realism, D&D isn't built for it.

I never said sex didn't make a difference. I even aknowledged it did. I just said age makes a bigger difference. Do you contest that?

[Segev]

Edit: I'm really struggling to explain this, as simple notions often are. You can think Avengers peaked at Age of Ultron. You can ask someone who thinks Infinity Wars was better why they think so. You can explain to them why despite you still hold that Age of Ultron was the superior film. You cannot tell them they are wrong for still thinking Infinity War 2 is better.

I got it. And that's fine. It just seemed like what you wrote could be interpreted much less...forgivingly.

I do think that it's counterproductive to both fun and ease of play, and that it also doesn't yield sufficient additional verisimilitude, to apply extra mechanics for playing "child" characters.

The reason I worried your post was saying "don't make that argument" is because, by saying both of those things, I am inherently suggesting that anybody who thinks it does add useful verisimilitude or does not make things too complicated or unfun is incorrect in that opinion. After all, while whether XYZ is fun for ABC or not is subjective to ABC, the worth argument will tend to be a bit more solidly supportable by anecdotal and experimental evidence.

Now, I'm not saying somebody is wrong for having fun in the way I suggest is less likely to engender it, but I am saying that I think people who expect it to be more fun that way are probably wrong in that expectation, even for themselves. I say this from experience, both my own and watching others make this mistake in the past. It's often just much more fun and much easier to play within the normal bounds.

As Rusvul said, if you want to mechanically represent the childish physical differences, just put your lower stats in the appropriate ones, rather than assigning penalties to them. You're not out of line for what an adult COULD be, but in your case it happens to represent childish stature/mentality, not physical or mental deficiency.

[Ganymede]

I can fluff that easily enough, halfling are fully grown and developed, especially since mechanically haflings are already just as good at escaping a grab as a human, which your post above seems to imply you would have a problem with.

I have no problem at all with halflings and humans being equally adept at muscling out of grapples. What I'd have a problem is a wishy-washy, selective application of Realism™ where one glosses over the difference between a halfling and an adult while attaching penalties for the difference between a teenager and an adult.

Aside from the fact that it simply doesn't adhere to 5e design principles, it just seems flimsy and poorly thought out.


I'm way more bothered by a character aging 5 years from 13 to 18, increasing in height and mass, and having no mechanical changes to show for it.

Why couldn't you represent that with the ability score increases every four levels?

Remember, when you assign a penalty to playing as a teenager or an older person, you're essentially saying that teenagers and older people should have less narrative impact in the game. You're saying that teenagers and older people aren't as good at being the hero of a story.

[Boci]

I have no problem at all with halflings and humans being equally adept at muscling out of grapples. What I'd have a problem is a wishy-washy, selective application of Realism™ where one glosses over the difference between a halfling and an adult while attaching penalties for the difference between a teenager and an adult.

Aside from the fact that it simply doesn't adhere to 5e design principles, it just seems flimsy and poorly thought out.

So you have no problem with a halfling being just as good at breaking a grapple as a human, but you do have a problem with a halfling being better a breaking a grapple than a 13 year old? How is that not inconsistent?


Why couldn't you represent that with the ability score increases every four levels?

Because aging and leveling is not ageing and the already mature party members also got those increases. Plus if they're a caster they aren't boosting physical stats in all likelihood.


Remember, when you assign a penalty to playing as a teenager or an older person, you're essentially saying that teenagers and older people should have less narrative impact in the game. You're saying that teenagers and older people aren't as good at being the hero of a story.

That's just not true. Nerrative impact and power have a complex relationship, not a simple postive one. A child character with disadvantage to break a grapple has just as much nerrative impact as fellow PC assuming all else is equal. If anything, their younger status will give them more enrative impact.


I got it. And that's fine. It just seemed like what you wrote could be interpreted much less...forgivingly.

Maybe you could have asked to check, before interpreting much less forgivingly?

[Greywander]

I never said sex didn't make a difference. I even aknowledged it did. I just said age makes a bigger difference. Do you contest that?
Ah, okay, sorry about that. And no, I'm not able to contest that. I have no idea how age affects strength, or how those differences compare to the differences due to sex. One thing I do remember hearing somewhere is that before puberty, boys and girls have a lot less sexual dimorphism, and so probably have similar amounts of strength. I have to assume that there is some point where a boy's strength is equivalent to that of an adult woman's strength, but I'm not sure what that point it. 13 might be too young, but 15 might do it. Maybe.

Biology was never my strong suit. I was always a physics and math guy.

[Segev]

Maybe you could have asked to check, before interpreting much less forgivingly?

I did, and explained the unforgiving way your post read to me to demonstrate WHY I was asking, in order to make sure that, if it wasn't what you meant, your answer would be better able to differentiate your meaning from what I was seeing the most problematic reading as being. Me asking was the post to which you responded with that explanation.

[Boci]

I did, and explained the unforgiving way your post read to me to demonstrate WHY I was asking, in order to make sure that, if it wasn't what you meant, your answer would be better able to differentiate your meaning from what I was seeing the most problematic reading as being. Me asking was the post to which you responded with that explanation.

No you didn't You said "Your comment directly attacks". You did not check. And you were very accusatory when you did bother to ask subsequently.

[Ganymede]

So you have no problem with a halfling being just as good at breaking a grapple as a human, but you do have a problem with a halfling being better a breaking a grapple than a 13 year old? How is that not inconsistent?

You might have misread or I might have misspoke.

I have a problem with introducing a homebrew rule whose reasoning would apply to other situations, but doesn't. In other words, I'm troubled by your cavalier attitude toward consistency. It strikes me as one of those spur-of-the-moment house rules that didn't have a lot of thought put into it,



That's just not true. Nerrative impact and power have a complex relationship, not a simple postive one. A child character with disadvantage to break a grapple has just as much nerrative impact as fellow PC assuming all else is equal. If anything, their younger status will give them more enrative impact.

No. If two PCs are created in the exact same way, but the second has an additional penalty, you've decided that the second PC should have less narrative impact, even if marginally so.

[Segev]

No you didn't You said "Your comment directly attacks". You did not check. And you were very accusatory when you did bother to ask subsequently.

I responded to your tone. My apologies if I came off harsher than you felt you were being.

[Boci]

You might have misread or I might have misspoke.

I have a problem with introducing a homebrew rule whose reasoning would apply to other situations, but doesn't. In other words, I'm troubled by your cavalier attitude toward consistency. It strikes me as one of those spur-of-the-moment house rules that didn't have a lot of thought put into it.

How is it inconsistent? Young characters are bad at breaking grapplings, mature characters aren't (neccissarily). How is that not consistent. The rules tell me a halfling is just at good at breaking a grapple as a human, so since a child human will be worse than an adult human, a child human will also be worse than an adult hafling.

I don't get where you are getting this inconsistenct complaint from. The above is consistent.


No. If two PCs are created in the exact same way, but the second has an additional penalty, you've decided that the second PC should have less narrative impact, even if marginally so.

1. But that won't happen. You won't have two identical characters in a party only one is a child.

2. Again, no. Nerrative impact and mechanical power are related, but its not a simpke positive relationship. If an NPC takes a shine to the PC because they are so young, that likely gives them way more nerrative imapct than anything lost by disadvantage to break a grapple.


I responded to your tone. My apologies if I came off harsher than you felt you were being.

Thank you for apologizing. Bear in mind the post you quoted was addressing a single poster who had all but said the OP was wrong for wanting simalationism in D&D. Maybe that concrete context should have carried more weight than how you read my tone, which can be hard to read in person, more so on the internet.

[Tanarii]

Per the PHB elves, dwarves, and gnomes are all mature at age 20. No stat adjustments necessary. Just because they aren't considered adults by their society doesn't mean they can't be out there adventuring with 18 year old humans.

In fact, in my head cannon (boom), thats when they're encourage to go have adventures. When they're considered adults, they are expected to come home, get married, raise a family and be upright and reapectable clan members. And put all that youthful 'adventuring' nonsense behind them.

[Ganymede]

Yeah, I don't think Boci's putting adequate thought into those posts before he/she hits enter. I wash my hands of this.

[Boci]

Yeah, I don't think Boci's putting adequate thought into those posts before he/she hits enter. I wash my hands of this.

What a coincidence, I don't think you are either. Didn't particularly feel the need to type it out, since its a commen sentiment when you are disagreeing with someone, but oh well.

[Greywander]

In fact, in my head cannon (boom)
Not to nitpick, but

Cannon
a mounted gun for firing heavy projectiles; a gun, howitzer, or mortar.

Canon
an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.
the body of ecclesiastical law.
the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art

The word you're looking for is "canon". Now, maybe you misspelled it on purpose, but I know there are still people out there who mix these up.

The more you know

[Boci]

Not to nitpick, but

Not to nitpick, but that was definitly nitpicking.

[Tanarii]

Now, maybe you misspelled it on purpose,
Eas it the boom that gave it aeay? It was the boom, wasnt it?

[Greywander]

Not to nitpick, but that was definitly nitpicking.
But someone on the internet said something that was wrong. What am I supposed to do, just walk away? That's like not straightening crooked picture frames every time you walk past.

Eas it the boom that gave it aeay? It was the boom, wasnt it?
It's really hard to tell sometimes, and I know it's embarrassing when you realize you've been saying/spelling something wrong this whole time, so better to let the person know sooner rather than later. While most people might be aware of, say, rogue vs. rouge, I don't think canon vs. cannon gets brought up as much.

[CantigThimble]

But someone on the internet said something that was wrong. What am I supposed to do, just walk away? That's like not straightening crooked picture frames every time you walk past.

It's really hard to tell sometimes, and I know it's embarrassing when you realize you've been saying/spelling something wrong this whole time, so better to let the person know sooner rather than later. While most people might be aware of, say, rogue vs. rouge, I don't think canon vs. cannon gets brought up as much.


Eh, I'd say that posting 2 dictionary definitions, a 'maybe you meant to do it wrong' and ending with the more you know is probably a bit much and feels kind of condescending. I'd just say something like "I think you meant canon not cannon" and that's more than enough usually.

[Tanarii]

It's really hard to tell sometimes, and I know it's embarrassing when you realize you've been saying/spelling something wrong this whole time, so better to let the person know sooner rather than later. While most people might be aware of, say, rogue vs. rouge, I don't think canon vs. cannon gets brought up as much.
Its all good. I happen to be fully aware of the difference, which is why I made a joke about it. But no real offense at you having felt the need to point it out, if it's one that bother you. If i want to be clear its a joke i should use green text. ;)

[Segev]

Eh, I'd say that posting 2 dictionary definitions, a 'maybe you meant to do it wrong' and ending with the more you know is probably a bit much and feels kind of condescending. I'd just say something like "I think you meant canon not cannon" and that's more than enough usually.

It came off as vaguely apologetic, but wanting to be sure he was getting a joke rather than seeing a mistake, to me.

[Lunali]

I'd say mechanically, don't change anything mechanically, elves in particular are fully grown at the same age as a human, they just don't have the life experience to be considered adults. In game is a different matter, other races may or may not care depending on their experience with under age elves, but elves at least should care, likely treating the character much the same way humans would treat a child or teenager.

[Requilac]

I think that 5e actually has accommodated for this matter. Check page 17 of the PHB under the age subheading. It says the following...

"You can choose any age for your character, which could provide an explanation for some of your ability scores. For example, if you play a very young or very old character, your age could explain a particularly low Strength or Constitution score, while advanced age could account for a high Intelligence or Wisdom."

It seems like 5e's intention is that you should make your ability scores reflect your age. Or at least that's what WotC seems to suggest. I don't really care about trying to maintain realism, so I wouldn't give a young player an ability score debonus. I also don't see why its solving anything. But sometimes I understand as a DM that you just want to inlcude a flavor house rule for thematic reasons. That being said, there is already a way to represent young age, and that is through the distribution of ability scores.

[Mellack]

Hey all, so DMing question real quick.

So I'm working on getting a campaign ready and one of my players wants to play a character who starts younger than adulthood (an elf that's 75 years old). So while trying to accommodate this, I brought out some old rules from a related d20 system where, if you start at an age younger than adulthood, you would incur certain penalties; because he's an adolescent, he would incur a -1 penalty to all of his stats.

That said, I'm sensing that the player is unhappy with this, as he's now thinking about retooling the character. I have no problem with working with players to make characters that fit their concept, but in exchange for this it might mean working outside of the standard ruleset.

I'll also admit that I do tend a little bit more on the simulation side of the equation than the kitchen sink side; if the rules for aging didn't matter, then why even include them/only go halfway on them? I recognize that this can rub some people the wrong way. I guess I'm wondering if I'm being unreasonable by saying that starting younger than adulthood would incur an aging penalty?

How do you guys deal with characters who start before adulthood? Do you allow players to even do it? If so, how do you make it work?

I have not read all the replies, but I want to point this part out. A 75 year old elf is physically an adult. Relevant quote form the Players Handbook pg 23

"Although elves reach physical maturity at about the same age as humans...An elf typically claims adulthood and an adult name around the age of 100"

So they will have all the same stats and abilities, they will just be considered a child and treated by elves at least as such.

[CantigThimble]

I have not read all the replies, but I want to point this part out. A 75 year old elf is physically an adult. Relevant quote form the Players Handbook pg 23

"Although elves reach physical maturity at about the same age as humans...An elf typically claims adulthood and an adult name around the age of 100"

So they will have all the same stats and abilities, they will just be considered a child and treated by elves at least as such.

Although you could make the case that they haven't reached mental maturity yet and thus apply the penalty only to the mental stats.

[Tanarii]

Although you could make the case that they haven't reached mental maturity yet and thus apply the penalty only to the mental stats.5e doesn't distinguish between "physical" and "mental" ability scores. That would be an argument attempting to judge natural language ("physical maturity") to an non-official division of mechanical attributes (physical vs mental ability scores).

If you're physically mature, than includes your physical structures of your brain. You're physically an adult.

And then there is context. The phrase "claims adulthood" makes it clear that it is a social status.

[CantigThimble]

5e doesn't distinguish between "physical" and "mental" ability scores. That would be an argument attempting to judge natural language ("physical maturity") to an non-official division of mechanical attributes (physical vs mental ability scores).

If you're physically mature, than includes your physical structures of your brain. You're physically an adult.

And then there is context. The phrase "claims adulthood" makes it clear that it is a social status.

Most humans are fully grown physically before they're 18 but we don't grant them the social status of 'adult' until they're age 18 because that's when we consider them to be mentally developed to a sufficient degree that they can make life changing decisions for themselves. And if you want to talk about 'physical development of the brain' that doesn't really end in humans until about age 27, I don't think its useful metric for deciding adulthood.

And we're talking about houserules anyway, who cares about whether an 'official' distinction has been made?

[Tanarii]

And we're talking about houserules anyway, who cares about whether an 'official' distinction has been made?
In this particular case we're talking about RAW. And RAW, elves are physically mature at twenty. So house rules for being immature should not apply to a 75 y.o. elf in the first place.

Now if we start discussing house rules for acting immature ... eh, most of us would be in trouble. :smallamused:

[CantigThimble]

In this particular case we're talking about RAW. And RAW, elves are physically mature at twenty. So house rules for being immature should not apply to a 75 y.o. elf in the first place.

Now if we start discussing house rules for acting immature ... eh, most of us would be in trouble. :smallamused:

So why do you think the book specifies physically mature instead of just saying mature?

[GreyBlack]

In this particular case we're talking about RAW. And RAW, elves are physically mature at twenty. So house rules for being immature should not apply to a 75 y.o. elf in the first place.

Now if we start discussing house rules for acting immature ... eh, most of us would be in trouble. :smallamused:

Wrong. We're not talking RAW. We're discussing house rules and how you handle it at your table.

If you handle it RAW, that's your answer. Others are free to answer otherwise.

[Tanarii]

So why do you think the book specifies physically mature instead of just saying mature?Because "mature" carries connotations, just as "immature" does. Which is why I cracked a joke about it.


Wrong. We're not talking RAW. We're discussing house rules and how you handle it at your table.
I suggest you go back and read it again. It's a PHB quote. So in this particular case, ie debating the PHB quote, we, as in Mellack (who posted it), myself and CantigThimble, are talking about RAW.

Edit: Also relevant to the entire thread. Your OP is about the need for a house rule, based on an incorrect assumption about the RAW of elves. They are not immature at age 75, they are mature.

[CantigThimble]

Because "mature" carries connotations, just as "immature" does. Which is why I cracked a joke about it.


I suggest you go back and read it again. It's a PHB quote. So in this particular case, ie debating the PHB quote, we, as in Mellack (who posted it), myself and CantigThimble, are talking about RAW.

Edit: Also relevant to the entire thread. Your OP is about the need for a house rule, based on an incorrect assumption about the RAW of elves. They are not immature at age 75, they are mature.

I disagree. I think 'physically' is specified to contrast with 'mentally' and that a 75 year old elf would be about as mentally mature as a human teenager. As a result, I think it is a perfectly reasonable houserule to give a 75 year old elf -1 to their Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma scores while leaving Strength, Dexterity and Constitution normal.

[Mellack]

I disagree. I think 'physically' is specified to contrast with 'mentally' and that a 75 year old elf would be about as mentally mature as a human teenager. As a result, I think it is a perfectly reasonable houserule to give a 75 year old elf -1 to their Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma scores while leaving Strength, Dexterity and Constitution normal.

You can of course do what you want in your game, but I disagree that is what they meant by "physically." I believe it was in contrast to "socially". That is what they then talk about in the next sentence, not mental ability. That is what we would term the age of majority. There is no physical difference between a person's 18th birthday and the day before it, yet on one you are considered an adult and the other a minor. That is a social construct. I read the PHB to be describing the difference between being physically and socially considered an adult.

[Lunali]

Stats are decided the way they are because of game balance reasons, not to reflect the stats of the population as a whole. As such, unless starting at a younger age affects balance somehow there shouldn't be an offsetting penalty.

[CantigThimble]

You can of course do what you want in your game, but I disagree that is what they meant by "physically." I believe it was in contrast to "socially". That is what they then talk about in the next sentence, not mental ability. That is what we would term the age of majority. There is no physical difference between a person's 18th birthday and the day before it, yet on one you are considered an adult and the other a minor. That is a social construct. I read the PHB to be describing the difference between being physically and socially considered an adult.

Sure, but I think there are reasons behind most social conventions and the reason behind the social convention of adulthood is mental development. We trust 18 year olds to make life changing decisions that we don't allow 15 year olds to make because, on average, 18 year olds are better preapred to make those decisions.

There may not be much difference between those two days, but what about your 17th and 18th birthdays? Most people will show some difference in mental maturity between those two. The fact that a change exists on a gradient doesn't mean that it isn't there at all, and when you're identifying a change sometimes you just have to pick a point in the gradient and go with it.

[Mellack]

Sure, but I think there are reasons behind most social conventions and the reason behind the social convention of adulthood is mental development. We trust 18 year olds to make life changing decisions that we don't allow 15 year olds to make because, on average, 18 year olds are better preapred to make those decisions.

There may not be much difference between those two days, but what about your 17th and 18th birthdays? Most people will show some difference in mental maturity between those two. The fact that a change exists on a gradient doesn't mean that it isn't there at all, and when you're identifying a change sometimes you just have to pick a point in the gradient and go with it.

But the social conventions vary widely. For example, Jewish tradition has one become an adult at age 13. Historically people were allowed to get married at anywhere from 12-16. The current age of 18 is just an age with no real scientific backing. Since the drinking age is 21, that is not even a conclusive age. For elves that age is around 100, and it does not have to necessarily reflect ability much less a statistical number the same way our social adult age does not.

[CantigThimble]

But the social conventions vary widely. For example, Jewish tradition has one become an adult at age 13. Historically people were allowed to get married at anywhere from 12-16. The current age of 18 is just an age with no real scientific backing. Since the drinking age is 21, that is not even a conclusive age. For elves that age is around 100, and it does not have to necessarily reflect ability much less a statistical number the same way our social adult age does not.

It varies, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to it. To some extent, I think maturity depends on expectation and the harshness of the environment. Many people won't mature until they have to and so in a dangerous world where you're expected to be ready to operate independently by age 14 you'll learn a lot faster than in a very safe environment where you won't be kicked out of the house until 18.

Regardless, I think treating a 75 year old no differently than an adult is also a perfectly reasonable ruling. There are reasonable arguments for either side and I think it just comes down to the current DM's perspective on the issue. I'm just offering different perspectives and options. Personally, which ruling I would use would just depend on the context of the request. (Who was requesting it and why)

[DrowPiratRobrts]

That said, I'm sensing that the player is unhappy with this, as he's now thinking about retooling the character. I have no problem with working with players to make characters that fit their concept, but in exchange for this it might mean working outside of the standard ruleset.

You're free to house-rule however you like as a DM. Your players are also free to get upset when you make up rules (or borrow them from another system) that completely alter their characters in a negative way.

I recommend dropping this if it's bothering the player. If you aren't using 5e rules and you're crippling a character from the jump because "simulation" then maybe don't play a game with, oh I don't know, elves and magic and dragons and planes of existence and goblins and water breathing and decks of many things and healing potions and treasure hoards and fantasy tropes and on and on and on...

I'm not trying to be mean, but I hope some quick wit will help the issue I and others who have posted see with this sort of ruling. It seems like you're just making up something to punish a player randomly (even if you really think it's "cooler" or "more fun" that way). If my DM did this I'd be really upset.

As I said before though, your game=your rules. Just make sure everyone's having fun. That's a responsibility, not a happy accident.

[Tanarii]

I disagree. I think 'physically' is specified to contrast with 'mentally' and that a 75 year old elf would be about as mentally mature as a human teenager. As a result, I think it is a perfectly reasonable houserule to give a 75 year old elf -1 to their Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma scores while leaving Strength, Dexterity and Constitution normal.
A 75 year old elf is about the equivalent of a 26 year old human physically, and a 100 yo equivalent to a 29 yo, in terms of progression from physical maturity to age of death . It's very unlikely that adulthood could be considered anything other than
A social construct. It certainly wouldn't make any sense to interpret them as mental teenagers.

[CantigThimble]

A 75 year old elf is about the equivalent of a 26 year old human physically, and a 100 yo equivalent to a 29 yo, in terms of progression from physical maturity to age of death . It's very unlikely that adulthood could be considered anything other than
A social construct. It certainly wouldn't make any sense to interpret them as mental teenagers.

So why do elves treat them as such? Are they just a race of idiots who don't know anything about raising children or might there actually be a reason?

Seriously, I understand the argument that elves could be mature in all respects by age 75, if you want to do it that way then fine, what I don't understand is the hardline stance that they absolutely MUST be according to that single sentence in the PHB that can very reasonably be interpreted in a way that implies mental immaturity.

[GreyBlack]

So why do elves treat them as such? Are they just a race of idiots who don't know anything about raising children or might there actually be a reason?

Seriously, I understand the argument that elves could be mature in all respects by age 75, if you want to do it that way then fine, what I don't understand is the hardline stance that they absolutely MUST be according to that single sentence in the PHB that can very reasonably be interpreted in a way that implies mental immaturity.

According to MToF, elves are considered children until such time that they have undergone what's called "Tearing the Veil;" basically, elves are reincarnated from older souls and during their childhood and adolescence relive some of those memories whenever they trance; this makes it hard for them to separate their past from their present. When they learn to control their trance and shut out these so-called "primal memories," they are considered fully adult, at which time they typically go out adventuring.

Under this lore, while elves are physically matured, they still lack a certain degree of control over their mental and spiritual faculties. Under this interpretation, it could make sense that the young elf, up until such time that they undergo the Tearing of the Veil, they might experience certain penalties, and be disadvantaged in certain situations with regards to, for example, insight or interpersonal interactions.

[Glorthindel]

I am perfectly ok with your ruling.

If nothing else it is a nice litmus test for whether the player is seriously intrested in the idea or not. If they are willing to accept the penalty in order to play the concept they want, I would actually then waive the penalty since it is clear the concept is important to them. If, like your player, they just wanted to do it for trolling or other frivolous reasons, they are likely to back out when a penalty gets discussed.

[Tanarii]

Seriously, I understand the argument that elves could be mature in all respects by age 75, if you want to do it that way then fine, what I don't understand is the hardline stance that they absolutely MUST be according to that single sentence in the PHB that can very reasonably be interpreted in a way that implies mental immaturity.1) this is the forums. That's our job here. To insist that ...
2) it cannot be reasonable interpreted the way you're claiming. That is an unreasonable interpretation. The only reasonable interpretation is mine.
:smallamused:

Seriously though, even though I understand that intellectually you probably see your interpretation as a reasonable one, emotionally my reaction to your interpretation is "are you kidding me?"

Edit: Thinking more on my emotional reaction to this, I guess I don't see where anyone would think it's reasonable the designers would intend a race that is adults in body but teenagers in mind. There's no purpose to that. Whereas adult in body and mind but not socially considered an adult is a common trope. Especially since the "adult" age for all races that have it, elves, dwarves and gnomes, coresponds approximately with a human of around thirty.

[GreyBlack]

Edit: Thinking more on my emotional reaction to this, I guess I don't see where anyone would think it's reasonable the designers would intend a race that is adults in body but teenagers in mind. There's no purpose to that. Whereas adult in body and mind but not socially considered an adult is a common trope. Especially since the "adult" age for all races that have it, elves, dwarves and gnomes, coresponds approximately with a human of around thirty.

Mostly because elves are an undesigned race from a certain perspective. They're a holdover from Tolkien that no one ever really gave much thought to, and now trying to explain away the plot holes without resorting to Tolkien just creates more plot holes. I forget who said it, but there's a certain tragedy to elves in Tolkien that just cannot be recreated in D&D. Part of the reason why the elves are fading is because their slower lifespan (they physically mature around 75-80). Because they cannot keep pace with the developing world around them, they are sailing into the West faster than they are being born.

So, in D&D, we instead have this weird hybrid elf that isn't quite Tolkien (for legal reasons), but still holds enough of Tolkien's baggage to create plotholes when you look too closely.