Need help with child stats

[Angrith]

So my PCs have gotten involved with a scheming noble plotting a coup. The next step of the plan is kidnap a rival's daughter to ensure cooperation. While the PCs intend to foil the plot, they need to play along a bit. What are some good stats for a child aristocrat, so I know what her capabilities are? I'm a little loath to use adult class levels for an 8 year old.

[tenshiakodo]

Really, all you should need to do is take the stats for a normal-sized adult, drop them one size category (doing the reverse of what you would do for increasing a size category as shown here: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases ).

Then I'd maybe lower Wisdom by 2 points. You _could_ remove the armor proficiencies from a first level Aristocrat (but it might be funny if they found her some Halfling Plate Mail). Otherwise, I don't see any reason why Aristocrat 1 stats would be a problem; typically royals begin training in etiquette, diplomacy, history, and all that stuff as soon as they are old enough to do so.

[Telonius]

There isn't anything official in 3.5 for it.

If you're open to Pathfinder material, they have a Young (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/simple-template-young-cr-1/) template.

[RNightstalker]

Roll up stats for her as an adult, and reverse engineer it from the PH age tables?

[Angrith]

There isn't anything official in 3.5 for it.

If you're open to Pathfinder material, they have a Young (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/simple-template-young-cr-1/) template.

Huh, I could have sworn I added the pathfinder tag. I must have mis-clicked. As this is pathfinder, I am completely open and would even prefer it! Anyhow, the young template is perfect, and I can't believe I forgot it.

[Noxangelo]

Huh, I could have sworn I added the pathfinder tag. I must have mis-clicked. As this is pathfinder, I am completely open and would even prefer it! Anyhow, the young template is perfect, and I can't believe I forgot it.

pathfinder rules for children characters
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/more-character-options/young-characters/

[Angrith]

Now that's interesting, the child rules don't have anything about size categories like the young template. The penalties are also a bit smaller.

[Noxangelo]

Now that's interesting, the child rules don't have anything about size categories like the young template. The penalties are also a bit smaller.

they are also limited to NPC classes.

[Sinner's Garden]

They're not "adult" class levels, though. They're just class levels. I'm reminded of the pope in Eberron, in fact, who has a whole 18 levels of Cleric at her disposal. Just give her fewer levels until you feel that it's sufficient.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The standard statistics for a preteen child are probably roughly something like this:

Str: no
Cha: over 9000
Armor class: you hit
Hit points: you did it, you baby killer

In this case maybe add some aristocrat class skills and a half baked dex, con or wis to support it, if you want the child to be mechanically interesting?

Or reveal her as a third level sorceress a few sessions in. That would be fun too.

[Psyren]

The standard statistics for a preteen child are probably roughly something like this:

The Giant had "stats" very like these:


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.

I wouldn't recommend letting 8-year olds be killable (come on, even Resident Evil didn't do that) so I'm not really seeing the point of giving her "capabilities." If it's an escort thing, let her succeed at hiding from most danger without the party having to actively protect her, and keep it brief.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The Giant had "stats" very like these:



I wouldn't recommend letting 8-year olds be killable (come on, even Resident Evil didn't do that) so I'm not really seeing the point of giving her "capabilities." If it's an escort thing, let her succeed at hiding from most danger without the party having to actively protect her, and keep it brief.

I didn't remember I had stolen it from the Giant, just that I picked it up on the forum somewhere. Credits to the Giant for passing that one on to me then, and thanks for reminding me.

[Angrith]

The standard statistics for a preteen child are probably roughly something like this:

Str: no
Cha: over 9000
Armor class: you hit
Hit points: you did it, you baby killer

In this case maybe add some aristocrat class skills and a half baked dex, con or wis to support it, if you want the child to be mechanically interesting?

Or reveal her as a third level sorceress a few sessions in. That would be fun too.


The Giant had "stats" very like these:



I wouldn't recommend letting 8-year olds be killable (come on, even Resident Evil didn't do that) so I'm not really seeing the point of giving her "capabilities." If it's an escort thing, let her succeed at hiding from most danger without the party having to actively protect her, and keep it brief.

It's less I need stats to know if she's killable (they won't), and more I want her stats because she might attack them (ineffectively, but she may try). My party also likes to do weird things. I could easily see them trying to get this kid to climb a mountainside or help on their ship. Thus, strength and dex may very well come up.

Thank you everyone for your feedback. She's going to get a level in aristocrat using the child modifiers methinks.

[Aotrs Commander]

The Giant had "stats" very like these:

Well....for the OotS world that's fine for him to decide that, but elsewhere in D&D, dragons are like Go'auld, wherein about an hour after hatching, they are fully capable of deciding murder people and can do so. (Said the draconomicon, at any rate.)

So, y'know, dragons are kinda canoniclly a bad example - in fact, given "wyrmling" has long been a thing back into the early editions, probably the single biggest bad example you could have picked that is present in D&D.

(This is explictly why I felt quite confortable upgrading the witch Child-Scent hex (because it either got made competative or got the frack out) to function as effectively Favoured Enemy: Not-an-Adult, given the quite legitimate possibility of running into non-adult creatures (young dragons, larval forms etc etc).)



For our group, we basically just fundementally ignore age categories (I find D&D's age rules to be by turns either silly - elves - or needless restrictive), so if a players wants a young character, they just have one, with no worries. (My current - and highest level character, who is about a 16th level Cleric/Monk Naruto-flavoured ninja - is 14 or so.) Failing that, either of the options for stats PF suggested would do fine, I think (the one time I did a child-party I did something similar), but I'd probably largely ignore the clause about restricting them to NPC classes if you don't want to. (The aprty I tried and failed with the PCs were supposed to roleplay getting their class abilities, but this was the time I learned not to try to run sandboxes.)



I have always found the treatment of children to be rather a double-standard, because the elderly and infirm - equally, if not more vulnerable - are never afforded quite the same level of outrage.

[hamishspence]

Well....for the OotS world that's fine for him to decide that, but elsewhere in D&D, dragons are like Go'auld, wherein about an hour after hatching, they are fully capable of deciding murder people and can do so. (Said the draconomicon, at any rate.)

Which was the point The Giant was trying to make - that newly hatched wyrmlings shouldn't be like that, and should just be "like any other baby".

Just because it's "long been a thing", doesn't mean that, in The Giant's eyes, it's a good thing.




I have always found the treatment of children to be rather a double-standard, because the elderly and infirm - equally, if not more vulnerable - are never afforded quite the same level of outrage.

In D&D, the elderly at least are nearly always much less vulnerable, due to class levels.

And a baby human, of the "too young to crawl" kind, will always be more vulnerable than any adult healthy enough to at least move - with few people being "so infirm as to be completely immobile".

[Psyren]

Well....for the OotS world that's fine for him to decide that, but elsewhere in D&D, dragons are like Go'auld, wherein about an hour after hatching, they are fully capable of deciding murder people and can do so. (Said the draconomicon, at any rate.)

So, y'know, dragons are kinda canoniclly a bad example - in fact, given "wyrmling" has long been a thing back into the early editions, probably the single biggest bad example you could have picked that is present in D&D.

(This is explictly why I felt quite confortable upgrading the witch Child-Scent hex (because it either got made competative or got the frack out) to function as effectively Favoured Enemy: Not-an-Adult, given the quite legitimate possibility of running into non-adult creatures (young dragons, larval forms etc etc).)



For our group, we basically just fundementally ignore age categories (I find D&D's age rules to be by turns either silly - elves - or needless restrictive), so if a players wants a young character, they just have one, with no worries. (My current - and highest level character, who is about a 16th level Cleric/Monk Naruto-flavoured ninja - is 14 or so.) Failing that, either of the options for stats PF suggested would do fine, I think (the one time I did a child-party I did something similar), but I'd probably largely ignore the clause about restricting them to NPC classes if you don't want to. (The aprty I tried and failed with the PCs were supposed to roleplay getting their class abilities, but this was the time I learned not to try to run sandboxes.)



I have always found the treatment of children to be rather a double-standard, because the elderly and infirm - equally, if not more vulnerable - are never afforded quite the same level of outrage.

My point in quoting that was less to agree with him re: his stance on hatchling dragons (I do think there is value in them being dangerous, though I'd perhaps lean more towards a dragon hatchery being a hazard/trap that must be escaped or neutralized, than the party taking on an individual baby dragon in standard combat) - but rather, my larger point was that stats for 8-year old human children are probably not something the OP's game (or any game) should be going for. It's more than reasonable to say that if she attacks the party that nothing would happen without actually having to roll for it, and that putting her in mortal peril would be taboo.

[Angrith]

And putting a child in mortal peril is far from something I want to do, but statting her out is a great way to determine what she knows, her fitness, her mental acuity. If she winds up traveling with the party for a bit, they'll have to make accommodations for her. Her stats help determine what those are. From my standpoint, it's much easier to give her stats and then protect her through DM fiat, than it is to not give her stats and determine her abilities on the fly.

I do hope I'm not coming off as antagonistic, as I am simply trying to explain why I am giving her a sheet. I don't need her hit points; I need her skills and attributes.

[Psyren]

I know it might not seem that helpful, but I'm still not seeing the value - if you want her to know something just have her know it (or vice-versa). You shouldn't roll a d20 at all if there is no chance of failure, and every time a child fails at something the party wants to accomplish, their resentment of her is very likely to grow. This is especially for physical things like hiding. Almost no gamer on the planet likes an escort quest.

If you're determined to have a "sheet, then... maybe I'd start with an aristocrat, and lower her physical stats to negative modifiers - but again, I generally think that as long as the party takes the time to help her she should succeed at whatever the obstacle is. Or at the very least, she shouldn't be the cause of the party failing anything.

[Zancloufer]

Which was the point The Giant was trying to make - that newly hatched wyrmlings shouldn't be like that, and should just be "like any other baby".

Just because it's "long been a thing", doesn't mean that, in The Giant's eyes, it's a good thing.


It is worth noting that (A) Dragons are giant super intelligent magical death breathing super lizards and (B) there are animals (Precociality is the term iirc) that can the same day they are born be somewhat capable of taking care of them selves. Not all babies "are like any other" some species are better at defending them selves when young that others.


Not saying that baby murdering is usually a good thing but there is something to consider that some animals are more dangerous than others. You shouldn't explicitally put PCs in a situation where they have to murder young dragons but I wouldn't go out of your way to avoid fighting them if the cards land that way. The fact that some Wrymling Dragons have both the ability and intent to brutally murder a fully grown humanoid, or low level adventurer, treating them as harmless is rather asinine.

[hamishspence]

Sure - but just because D&D dragons are written that way, doesn't mean they should be that way.

Even adult dragons of a species with a reputation for hostility, should not necessarily be "attacked on sight".



Because the D&D game already includes dragons, and the treatment of such within the text of the game and around the gaming table was already an issue before I drew my first comic. I didn't invent this setting out of whole cloth, it's a pastiche. It's a commentary on the way people are already playing the game. The "point" of including the black dragons in OOTS is to expressly make these very points that I am being criticized for making. To take the criticisms of Start of Darkness to the next level: Yes, even dragons.

The real-world parallel that I am drawing is to the real players sitting around the real table, rolling dice and making up stories about dragons, not to any actual dragons. I'm not making commentary on how I think humans should treat dragons, I'm making commentary on how I think people should write fiction or play games about how humans treat dragons. Namely, they should acknowledge that if the fictional human kills the fictional dragon on sight for no reason than that they are a dragon, then that fictional human has done something bad. Maybe something understandable given the circumstances, but not something to be lauded and congratulated upon for doing what needed to be done.

That's it. That's all I'm trying to accomplish. It's a really simple point, but this whole discussion proves that it's a point that needs to be made.

[King of Nowhere]

And putting a child in mortal peril is far from something I want to do, but statting her out is a great way to determine what she knows, her fitness, her mental acuity. If she winds up traveling with the party for a bit, they'll have to make accommodations for her. Her stats help determine what those are. From my standpoint, it's much easier to give her stats and then protect her through DM fiat, than it is to not give her stats and determine her abilities on the fly.

I do hope I'm not coming off as antagonistic, as I am simply trying to explain why I am giving her a sheet. I don't need her hit points; I need her skills and attributes.

in that case, i don't think there's much she can contribute mechanically.

let's see stuff that an 8 years old can do well

- climb trees (he's helped by being small-sized, as per the square-cube law, even if the phb does not give a size modifier to climb; consider the relative climbing prowess of a cat and a tiger)
- give the party a bonus to persuasion, as long as it's appropriate for a children (as in, you could get a better chance of begging and shelter for the child, but good luck using that to sign a treaty)
- contribute to spotting/hearing danger; she probably doesn't have any particular penalty there
- move silent, hide (also effects of size, even though the phb don't give size boosts for move silently; but they should be a thing; have you ever heard an ant?)
- crawl into cramped spaces (escape artist, also size-based)
i don't think there's anything that a child can do better than an adult, though there may be some things that the child does just as well.
children have great stamina, but that's mostly because in western society we tend to be physically unfit. anyway, she should not slow down the party in a long march.

if we consider street children from places with a poor enough development to have gangs of those running loose, we see that they are also fully capable of killing an adult with a weapon, given the chance and the element of surprise, or advantage of numbers. which is not going to be the case here, as she's not grown in the streets.

the conclusion is, she should not be mechanically relevant anywhere. you can give the party a +2 circumstance bonus on diplomacy when asking help, and you can give her a spot/listen with a +0 modifier when needed. she won't have any problem following the party on land travel. there's nothing else she can do that can't be done better by some party member, unless she's a special child (as a noble, she's probably partially trained in some knowledges that the party may lack; she's probably more literate than the barbarian; but it's hardly going to be relevant)

[hamishspence]

My point in quoting that was less to agree with him re: his stance on hatchling dragons (I do think there is value in them being dangerous, though I'd perhaps lean more towards a dragon hatchery being a hazard/trap that must be escaped or neutralized, than the party taking on an individual baby dragon in standard combat) - but rather, my larger point was that stats for 8-year old human children are probably not something the OP's game (or any game) should be going for.

Pretty much. The thread itself seems to have a 403 error when I click on individual posts after Searching it. However, from it, regarding combat stats for children:



they should not exist in our fantasies. Because the taboo (against killing children) is so critically important that we cannot permit any opening to form.

Since most players are not willing to explore the moral questions, why does an infant/juvenile of a sentient species need to be introduced?

Much like how I engage with D&D itself, I am much more interested in talking about how the world should be than how it is.

[Aotrs Commander]

Pretty much. The thread itself seems to have a 403 error when I click on individual posts after Searching it. However, from it, regarding combat stats for children:

Okay, I don't see all that first quote, so there could be context I'm missing, but...

I think all that I can say here, that I should say here, on these forums that belong to Rich, especially as he is not invoved in the conversation directly, is, politely and respectfully, that as an equalist1, singling out children specifically as being more taboo (to the point of what almost sounds like mental censure) than any of the other vulnerable (the severely disabled or the infirm elderly) is something I would find VERY MUCH not okay.

And leave it at that.



1And - as much as I have a pathological hate of using "identifies as" since it implies it is some sort of decision I've made and not something that is, has always been and always will be fundementally part of my being, I will say it here - one who "identifies as" a nonhuman (urrrrgh, if I were still alive, I'd have thrown up a little bit at saying that phrase).

[Unavenger]

Noble Child
Young Human aristocrat 1
Any alignment Small humanoid (human)
Init +3; Senses Perception –1

DEFENSE

AC 17, touch 14, flat-footed 14 (+3 armor, +3 Dex, +1 size)
hp 3 (1d8-1)
Fort +1, Ref +1, Will +1

OFFENSE

Speed 30 ft.
Melee improvised light hammer -5 (1d3-1)
Ranged improvised light hammer -1 (1d3-1)

TACTICS

During Combat: The noble child runs away if able, and throws rocks or other objects if stuck in a location from which she can neither run nor be attacked. If cornered, she lashes out with whatever she's carrying, or distracts enemies (with the Aid Another action) if she has allies who might benefit from it.

During Social Encounters: The noble child blusters her way through social situations with surprising confidence, falling back on the political power of her house where necessary, but lacks the wits to read others and doesn't have enough experience outside the nobility to gauge herself outside of court.

STATISTICS

Str 9, Dex 17, Con 8, Int 9, Wis 8, Cha 10
Base Atk +0; CMB -2; CMD 11
Feats Noble Scion, Persuasive
Skills Bluff +4 (+6 against other nobles or members of a noble court), Diplomacy +6, Intimidate +2, Knowledge (Nobility) +5, Perception +3
Languages Common
Relevant Gear: Parade armor, a variety of weaponisable objects

[tenshiakodo]

On the other hand, a kid hero is a legitimate trope in a lot of fiction (not just fantasy). Narnia, The Chronicles of Prydain, The Legend of Zelda (and many, many more). Just saying a child cannot possibly be useful in any meaningful way, realistic or not, isn't much fun.\

Besides, if a Halfling can wield a sword and fight off monsters...

If you really want her to participate, give her some Sorcerer levels. I bet THAT would surprise your party when Princess Sunshine fires off a Scorching Ray!

[Psyren]

the conclusion is, she should not be mechanically relevant anywhere. you can give the party a +2 circumstance bonus on diplomacy when asking help, and you can give her a spot/listen with a +0 modifier when needed. she won't have any problem following the party on land travel. there's nothing else she can do that can't be done better by some party member, unless she's a special child (as a noble, she's probably partially trained in some knowledges that the party may lack; she's probably more literate than the barbarian; but it's hardly going to be relevant)

Agreed.


Okay, I don't see all that first quote, so there could be context I'm missing, but...

I think all that I can say here, that I should say here, on these forums that belong to Rich, especially as he is not invoved in the conversation directly, is, politely and respectfully, that as an equalist1, singling out children specifically as being more taboo (to the point of what almost sounds like mental censure) than any of the other vulnerable (the severely disabled or the infirm elderly) is something I would find VERY MUCH not okay.

And leave it at that.

It's worth noting though that "Elderly" in D&D terms doesn't necessarily have the effect on mental or physical capability that it does in our world. Putting aside that the physical penalties from even being an hour away from dying of old age cap out at a mere -6 in D&D, we also don't have magic items and buffs here to pick up the slack, nor special abilities like Timeless Body that let us ignore them entirely.

In other words, I can respect a commitment to equality, but my own stance is that equality and equity (i.e. fair treatment, to each according to their own needs and abilities, or lack thereof) are not the same thing at all - and even moreso in D&D.


Just saying a child cannot possibly be useful in any meaningful way, realistic or not, isn't much fun.

I'm not saying she/they can't be useful at all - just that introducing dice rolls into it can result in an unintended and especially negative result. If the child tries to hide from danger, let them succeed. If the child tries to help in a fight or a skill challenge, they should succeed at that too (and provide a very minor benefit, without exposing the child to harm.) If the child is in danger, the only real question for the party is whether they're trying to help (succeed) or not (not.)

Escort missions have a lot of downside potential in other words, even when you roll perfectly - and when you don't, they feel especially bad.

[Clementx]

Junior High (12-15): -2 penalty to mental stat array which goes away when matured, like when they get through their first life-or-death adventure. I generally have their skills max at 3, which get boosted to the normal cap of 4 for 1st level to match the Int bump. I use the npc version of whatever class they will grow into or strip out class features (no lvl1 spells, but they have cantrips. Detect evil, but no smite). CR 1/2 at best, 1/3 if they have realistic (read: barely any) gear.

Preteen (8-11): As above, but with a smaller size category, and all the normal effects of that. Usually don't grant even a feat. CR 1/4.

Younger: Stats don't matter.

[RNightstalker]

This isn't the D&D version of the Captain Keyes mission is it?

[Angrith]

This isn't the D&D version of the Captain Keyes mission is it?

Not knowing the reference I have to say I don't think so. The party isn't being called upon to escort the child in any way. Basically, they've infiltrated the coup of an evil noble, who has sent them on a mission to kidnap the beloved daughter of a rival. The party is planning to derail the coup by intentionally screwing up this mission. For the sake of completion and giving my improv skills a bit of a break, I've decided to stat up the kid, so I'm prepared for player shenanigans. Any failed rolls on her part won't be setting the party back in any meaningful way. In fact, she shouldn't have to roll at all. I've just learned that my party tends to break all my plans, as most do it seems.

[RNightstalker]

Not knowing the reference I have to say I don't think so. The party isn't being called upon to escort the child in any way. Basically, they've infiltrated the coup of an evil noble, who has sent them on a mission to kidnap the beloved daughter of a rival. The party is planning to derail the coup by intentionally screwing up this mission. For the sake of completion and giving my improv skills a bit of a break, I've decided to stat up the kid, so I'm prepared for player shenanigans. Any failed rolls on her part won't be setting the party back in any meaningful way. In fact, she shouldn't have to roll at all. I've just learned that my party tends to break all my plans, as most do it seems.

It's a mission in the original Halo game where Captain Keyes decides to charge a tougher, better equipped, superior, outnumbering force with no sense of tactics and it's your job to get him somewhere alive...

[Angrith]

It's a mission in the original Halo game where Captain Keyes decides to charge a tougher, better equipped, superior, outnumbering force with no sense of tactics and it's your job to get him somewhere alive...

Oh most definitely not then. And that sounds like the worst kind of escort mission too.

[RNightstalker]

Oh most definitely not then. And that sounds like the worst kind of escort mission too.

It was the worst kind of any mission...

[Calthropstu]

The Giant had "stats" very like these:



I wouldn't recommend letting 8-year olds be killable (come on, even Resident Evil didn't do that) so I'm not really seeing the point of giving her "capabilities." If it's an escort thing, let her succeed at hiding from most danger without the party having to actively protect her, and keep it brief.

Baldurs Gate and some others allowed it. Some movies and shows depict child zombies. And many shows and movies depict have children get murdered, raped etc. And the Dragonball series had massive amounts of child violence. So it's not without precedent. Still, it can be a bit squick. So I wouldn't blame you if you did something along the lines of "You raise your weapon to deal a finishing blow to the poor child. The screen fades to black as the child screams. The blue screen of death suddenly appears and you have to reload the last save point which is, coincidentally, just before you decided to attack the poor child."

[Psyren]

Baldurs Gate and some others allowed it. Some movies and shows depict child zombies. And many shows and movies depict have children get murdered, raped etc. And the Dragonball series had massive amounts of child violence. So it's not without precedent. Still, it can be a bit squick. So I wouldn't blame you if you did something along the lines of "You raise your weapon to deal a finishing blow to the poor child. The screen fades to black as the child screams. The blue screen of death suddenly appears and you have to reload the last save point which is, coincidentally, just before you decided to attack the poor child."

Not exactly disproving my point here.

[Sinner's Garden]

You fundamentally don't have a point to disprove. You're just arguing your preferences. There are plenty of child heroes in stories and legends, and an adult commoner is no better equipped to stand up to an adventurer than a child commoner.

[Psyren]

You fundamentally don't have a point to disprove. You're just arguing your preferences. There are plenty of child heroes in stories and legends, and an adult commoner is no better equipped to stand up to an adventurer than a child commoner.

No, it's not just "my preferences." Dungeons & Dragons has defined starting ages (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) for adventuring built into the rules for a reason. The youngest age for humans of any class is 16. If you or the OP want to houserule otherwise, fine, but I'm giving likely reasons why the designers thought this might be a bad idea.

[Unavenger]

No, it's not just "my preferences." Dungeons & Dragons has defined starting ages (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) for adventuring built into the rules for a reason. The youngest age for humans of any class is 16. If you or the OP want to houserule otherwise, fine, but I'm giving likely reasons why the designers thought this might be a bad idea. The one lacking a point is you.

Actually, the youngest age for humans of any class in Pathfinder, which this thread is about, is 9 (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/more-character-options/young-characters/), and Pathfinder is very explicit about the fact that yes, children can and should face danger in fantasy worlds:

"Not all fantasy characters have the luxury of waiting until adulthood to begin their adventuring careers. The dangers of fantasy worlds don’t discriminate between the ages of those they threaten. Even the infant Hercules had to strangle the serpents Hera sent to kill him in his crib. But though they’re often underestimated, such youths are rarely the ready victims they’re often treated as."

[Psyren]

Actually, the youngest age for humans of any class in Pathfinder, which this thread is about, is 9 (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/more-character-options/young-characters/), and Pathfinder is very explicit about the fact that yes, children can and should face danger in fantasy worlds:

"Not all fantasy characters have the luxury of waiting until adulthood to begin their adventuring careers. The dangers of fantasy worlds don’t discriminate between the ages of those they threaten. Even the infant Hercules had to strangle the serpents Hera sent to kill him in his crib. But though they’re often underestimated, such youths are rarely the ready victims they’re often treated as."

You skipped the most important part of that page:


Child Endangerment: It’s one thing to throw traps, monsters, and deadly magic into the path of willing adults, but another thing to threaten young people with such dangers. Although fantasy fiction is filled with instances of peril giving juvenile characters the opportunity to be heroic and prove their potential, not all players are going to be comfortable with putting young characters in danger. Before including them in a game, the GM should discuss with the group whether or not this might negatively impact any players’ enjoyment of the campaign.

[Zancloufer]

You fundamentally don't have a point to disprove. You're just arguing your preferences. There are plenty of child heroes in stories and legends, and an adult commoner is no better equipped to stand up to an adventurer than a child commoner.


You skipped the most important part of that page:


Child Endangerment: It’s one thing to throw traps, monsters, and deadly magic into the path of willing adults, but another thing to threaten young people with such dangers. Although fantasy fiction is filled with instances of peril giving juvenile characters the opportunity to be heroic and prove their potential, not all players are going to be comfortable with putting young characters in danger. [B]Before including them in a game, the GM should discuss with the group whether or not this might negatively impact any players’ enjoyment of the campaign.

It seems you overlooked it to. Child endangerment is a touchy subject and should be discussed pre-game/session 0 for sure. Pathfinder however doesn't give out a blanket statement that it "Never should be done" just that you should ask players before even considered using it in game.

[Psyren]

It seems you overlooked it to. Child endangerment is a touchy subject and should be discussed pre-game/session 0 for sure. Pathfinder however doesn't give out a blanket statement that it "Never should be done" just that you should ask players before even considered using it in game.

You're right, it's not a hard "no" in Pathfinder. But you'll note that lots of other topics in the game, like portrayals of gore and violence, don't get such a disclaimer, so the designers do view it differently - that's my point.

In any event, I stand by my earlier suggestions - even if the OP gets approval from their group to do this, consider not bothering with stats for the child - she should succeed at most things as long as the party is helping her. They can do with that what they will.

[Sinner's Garden]

It seems you overlooked it to. Child endangerment is a touchy subject and should be discussed pre-game/session 0 for sure. Pathfinder however doesn't give out a blanket statement that it "Never should be done" just that you should ask players before even considered using it in game.

For all that I completely disagree with the notion that you need explicit approval of the contents before you can tell a story, I didn't overlook anything. What I said was that Psyren was arguing his opinion by force, as if his was intrinsically more valuable than dissenting opinions, and that posting it over and over again was actively antagonistic.

[Psyren]

For all that I completely disagree with the notion that you need explicit approval of the contents before you can tell a story, I didn't overlook anything.

It's common courtesy to ask for that approval if you're going to include elements in your story that could be sensitive in nature. The post I was replying to (when you replied to me) is a perfect example of the kind of content you should clear with your group ahead of time.

[Angrith]

I do agree that one should keep people's sensitivities in mind, and my party and I did handle this in session zero. We laid out expectations which proved especially important since we have a mix of good and evil party members. Additionally, the party has been recruited by what is best described as a fantasy mafia to infiltrate a planned coup to ensure that the kingdom remains good for business. Moral difficulties were expected by everyone involved, and I'm quite pleased to say that they are actively planning to derail the kidnapping plot. The session is tonight, so we'll see how they do it.

EDIT:

Well, we just finished the campaign. True to form, they opt not to kidnap her and instead buy her a birthday present that only adventurers would think of, a ring of at-will prestidigitation. She's 8 and has already turned her father's best suit neon pink.